Actually, it is *terrible* design to use more than one language if you don't have to. Sure, for small, short-lived projects you can mix and match tools, but for huge, long-lived projects you need to be able to replace people quickly (with large numbers of people then staff turnover is inevitable for a multitude of reasons). Having extra languages is a negative with respect to this. This is why the relative simplicity of Java is viewed favorably in the Enterprise and more complex and obscure alternatives (which may actually be better fits for the purpose) are avoided.
With regard to your "find an excuse to not hang out with after work" comment. Actually, it are pseudo-academic language snobs who are avoided. The kind who love adding layer upon layer of complexity (including switching languages and tools all over the place), and take pride in their l337 skills for doing this. They can be great developers but are shitty *designers* (too bad they're usually so clueless at design they never even see or consider this aspect). Remember, great design is about *removing* stuff. As Einstein said, "As simple as possible, but no simpler" [note: this is actually misquote of what he actually said, but it is commonly enough used and conveys the same meaning in fewer words]. That means *fewer* languages, not more, should be preferred.
The C# language is/was ECMA-standardized. The libraries (eg. the "API") most certainly is not. Even disgregarding the legal aspects, the fact of the matter is that the only complete implementation of the.NET stack is Microsoft's. Mono is missing many major components, as detailed in their page: http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
The community has long memories and it will take a very long time (if ever) for the community to forgive or forget the anti-social behavior of Microsoft (I won't detail all the things it has done, but there is no shortage, eg subvert ISO etc etc). This is a somewhat of a shame since there appear to be a great many dedicated, talented and generous individuals (we remember the nice cake for Firefox too) who wrestle with their own corporate idiocy and avaricious management.
I hope this is a lesson for all companies and individuals in power (although it's not like they're enlightened enough to read Slashdot) that it is far harder to unwind the damage you do than to compete hard but operate ethically in the first place.
Might be worth perusing the following page: http://mono-project.com/Compatibility
Basically, there are colossal holes in portability of C# apps (whether implemented as Mono or C#.Net) due to the library limitations. If you are doing something non-trivial (eg. intending to use something like WPF) and want it portable (since your enterprise customers have chosen their hardware and the bigger they are the less likely their critical servers are Windows, at least in my humble experience). The reason you don't notice a problem is that you are only working on Windows, and possibly have never had to deploy to a really big heterogeneous environment. Personally, I work on a Mac and build a lot of enterprise, web, and client side stuff that I test there and then to deploy to customers that either use Linux or Windows Server. Mono and the.NET Framework have a long way to go to be useful for me and my customers (while Java is already there). This is why so many bigger businesses stick with Java despite the relatively old-fashioned lack of syntactic sugar (but it is not that bad, really).
Good points. In addition, an even worse aspect of C#/Mono than not "officially sanctioned by MS", is Mono simply doesn't have all the 'standard' libraries that you get with C#. At least with Java you get the same thing everywhere (which is why Java still rules the Enterprise space, according to the Tiobe Index etc).
Richard Stallman (of the Free Software Foundation) calls cellphones 'tracking devices' and the last time I heard him talk he refused to carry one. It can be useful if you think of cellphones in that way (they weren't designed as tracking devices, but they're certainly being used that way now).
> It's not a re-definition by Microsoft by any measure, it's merely the classic computer science definition of the term. I agree that in some circles that term has been muddied, specifically in that cross platform means different OS, and possibly different architecture but that's a fundamentally narrow and nonsensical definition of cross platform and again, even then with the differences in software between Windows Phone 7, the Xbox, and Windows on the desktop it's not as if it's particularly the same OS anyway. Really, you're just using a bastardised form of the term, when actually all you want to say is that XNA doesn't really work on non-Microsoft platforms, rather than that it's not cross platform, because clearly it is. Personally I prefer to stick to the more rigorous and logically sound terms of academia than misused often illogical slang usually bred from the hobbyist world.
Piss off. That's simply bullshit. Sounds until very recently (with phones) you were are a Windows-only developer. Well, I have news for you. In the Enterprise (where the real money is for most companies that aren't Apple, Microsoft, or Sony) it is *cross-platform*. And yes, you sometimes need to deliver 3D and hardware accelerated-graphical algorithms to this world. The bigger the customer is the more diverse their environment is. Old stuff, new stuff, and ancient stuff that is the pillar of their business. You don't get to choose what environment it'll run on. Hence, true cross-platform solutions like OpenGL, Java and Oracle dominate the solutions in this space. The thing is, some of those solutions also work very well on the Windows desktop and phones (eg. OpenGL and Java [called Dalvik for licensing reasons]). Sure, if you are pretty much a Windows-only developer then DirectX and XNA are perfectly fine solutions. But then you have to waste time and *money* re-inventing your solutions when your customers force you to different platforms (Android in your case). IMHO (which clearly is not yours) it is better to start with the cross-platform stuff (which also works perfectly well on Windows if you know what you are doing) and use the time and *money* to do other stuff besides re-inventing the wheel. The IT World is becoming more heterogenous again, not less, so targeting Windows-only solutions makes as much sense as those people targeting "Internet Explorer 6, we don't need W3C" solutions half a decade ago (which seems ridiculous now, yes? yet that is a parallel argument you make for XNA - times are changing yet not everyone is scanning the horizon enough to see it or make sense of what is going on).
They're moving people as a precaution. Not because the people *must* move. There is a big difference. That's not to say the 40 year old reactor design is as good as a modern design, but let's get real here.
Come to New Zealand. We have a law that says 'format shifting' is allowed. As long you own the DVD you can copy it to your harddisk. Cool eh? [nb: IANAL]
Mate, 8 year old kids can find DRM free games on the Intertubez. It is not rocket science to find the stuff (although it *is* rocket science to perform the DRM circumvention hacks to begin with).
"However, when I say "cross-platform" I actually don't mean "different versions of Windows and the XBox" (Microsoft's hijacked definition). I actually mean *cross platform*."
"Right, so you mean some arbitrary definition that suits your world view then?"
I'm afraid us old-timers laugh derisively when we here stuff like this. No insult intended though. It's just we've been working in this area long enough that Microsoft's re-definition of *cross-platform* is a recent thing (since we've been developing for decades), incidentally their re-definition ('shifting the goal posts, as it were) was intended to produce exactly your reaction (and neuter the arguments of the veterans at that time).
XNA is indeed nice and OpenGL's lack of support for anything other than graphics and sounds (if we consider OpenAL as well) is pretty lame. It is horses for courses as you say. I'd much rather be able to be productive by re-using all my GLSL skills (which means I don't care about vendor-specific extensions in many cases) all over the place rather than switch tools for each target (which is a style that suits your own workflow, which is cool).
Your comment is completely valid. However, when I say "cross-platform" I actually don't mean "different versions of Windows and the XBox" (Microsoft's hijacked definition). I actually mean *cross platform*. Yes, true cross-platform isn't ever plain sailing. However, DirectX is simply a non-starter in this area.
PCs and the Xbox are not the only places to make money (albeit they are big slices of the pie, it is far better to target the *whole pie* instead of of just two big slices). In fact, they are a large but shrinking proportion of general computing out there. So, I use OpenGL because it gives me flexibility, just like it did for Austen Meyer: http://techhaze.com/2010/03/interview-with-x-plane-creator-austin-meyer/
Your first statement was
"You can remove the PS3 from that list as nobody uses OpenGL on it."
Your second statement directly contradicts your first. My point was PS3 either accepts OpenGL or libraries (usually integrated into larger development toolkits) built on OpenGL ES/PSGL. DirectX is not an option for the PS3.
Carmack changed his mind some years ago. This report is quite late.
However, the title of the magazine is "Custom PC". It is worth keeping in mind that if the PC and Xbox are the only platforms you are targeting then DirectX is a valid choice for development technology.
Otherwise, you are better off developing in OpenGL, where you can target PCs, PS3, iPhone, iPad, Mac OS X, WebGL, industrial Unix (not all 3D apps are games, dontchaknow?). The only thing you can't do much with is the Xbox (technically possible, but deliberately closed by Microsoft).
Also, the pace of change in OpenGL has picked up tremendously with the stewardship of the Khronos group. So OpenGL is starting to have parity in features again after lagging for some time (plus, you can get those features on Windows XP for those still on it).
Not only do PC gamers generally have better hardware than consoles (better CPU, GPU, RAM, keyboard, mouse, TrackIR head-tracking), they also get better and more diverse titles.
For example, take flight simulators. Consoles have 'flying games' but not 'simulators' per see (not in the class of: X-Plane, FlightSim X, IL-2 Sturmovik, LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS:BlackShark, or DCS:A-10C). Yes, these are 'niche' in terms of the overall game market, but who cares about what the producers think? A product that matches your interest is either available for your platform or it is not. Consoles simple don't have the *breadth* of titles that PCs do.
While Wings of Prey was nice for the consoles (although it looked better on the PC) it really lacks the depth of something like DCS:A-10C (if you have the kit to use the DirectX 11 graphics in 64-bit it is amazing). Have a look at the DCS:A-10C trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8LKJh6Xc0 (not a redirect to goatse, I promise). Or Flaming Cliffs 2 (aka LockOn Platinum): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_hoJNj3ys
I bought a PS3 at launch and it is great for casual gaming or gaming in a few genres (FPS, RTS, RPG, racing) . If that's all you want then it is fine. However, the depth of the experience is very shallow to what you can get with a PC. Consoles may make more money for the publishers, but it is certainly not a better experience for players (I personally *hate* not being able to join my mates on some servers since the console doesn't always let me decide which servers to join, which is something you can usually do with a PC). I won't even start discussing modability for PC vs console...
Mate, I don't disagree that Egypt effectively 'started it'. However, in terms of the 1967 War it it generally accepted that the opening shots of *that episode* were made by Israel. It is a matter of definition (rightly or wrongly).
I happen to think it was a rational and strategically sound thing for Israel to do given all the signs. Same thing with the 2008 South Ossetian War. The UN report listed the Georgians as starting it while saying there were previous provocations etc etc. It is just a matter of definition. The sad thing is that some people (clearly not you, as you appear very well informed) never ask the "why?" as to the causes of the first shots and each side's postures.
> WRONG. The state of war was already on at the time because Egypt had launched a naval blockade against Israel.
You are in fact incorrect. In the 1967 War Israel is considered to have struck first. In the Yom Kippur War they were prohibited by the US from pre-emptively attacking (with initial disasterous results).
> WRONG again. Israel was relying on French armaments at the time.
You are incorrect again. In 1967 the Israelis used French aircraft but the tanks and ammo (eg. bombs from those aircraft, as I said "ammo") were British or US. The Israeli logistical problem was not a lack of aircraft but the lack of munitions for them. Here's an introduction for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Iranian checks and balances - lol. Tell that to the *peaceful* protestors at the last election. Oh right, you can't, since most of the 'disappeared' (a miracle, just like the Mahdi!). Tell that to Neda Agha-Soltan, that the Supreme Leader and the Government have effective limits on their power. I agree that Iran's Constitution intended for it to be a "representative democracy" as you point out - it is a real shame that it has not turned out like that in reality.
Out of 'rainbow land' you would wait for the other guy to hit you first and hope you are still standing long enough to tell mommy they hit you first. In the Real World it is always better to fight on the other guy's turf, let his civilians get killed and his cities ruined. Harsh, yes, but that is the nature of total war and the struggle to prevent annihilation of your country. The other thing you are missing is asking the "why?" of the Israeli invasions. Read the background and the preceeding events before the wars and you'll learn a lot. In fact, Israel voluntarily relinquished Gaza hoping it would bring peace, what did that get them? They also hold the Golan to stop they Syrians shelling civilians in the Galilee (which the Syrians were doing randomly) and also as a bargaining chip - return Golan and Shebaa in return for peace. Since the Israelis are trying to get their neighbours to sign peace treaties who do you think the real instigators of the fighting are? Tip, those you have to be bribed to agree to a peace.
Bugger off - when this is done it constitutes a 'signal' of your determination to allies, *not a threat to the potential target nation*. Don't you know that *every* country with combat aircraft routinely practices scrambling aircraft and nuclear missions if they have the capability (Britain, US, USSR/Russian, France, India, Pakistan). Iran and Israel both do missile drills. Only one of them states it is to destroy the other. You are reading what you would like to read by selectively interpreting the 'facts', this is well known 'confirmation bias' and you have to strive hard to avoid it (eg. I try to, and form an opinion from there). Doesn't mean you can't reach a conclusion (for the circumstances of a point in time). Incidentally, I have not been to Iran (yet), but have been to very many countries in the Middle East, and do now the difference between was is reported in Western media and how it is on the ground. I have some appreciation of all the sides of the situation. In the case of Iran and Israel the Iranians are the ones being unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
With regard to your "find an excuse to not hang out with after work" comment. Actually, it are pseudo-academic language snobs who are avoided. The kind who love adding layer upon layer of complexity (including switching languages and tools all over the place), and take pride in their l337 skills for doing this. They can be great developers but are shitty *designers* (too bad they're usually so clueless at design they never even see or consider this aspect). Remember, great design is about *removing* stuff. As Einstein said, "As simple as possible, but no simpler" [note: this is actually misquote of what he actually said, but it is commonly enough used and conveys the same meaning in fewer words]. That means *fewer* languages, not more, should be preferred.
Would have been funnier if you had said, "Acyclovir" (which does have action against the Herpes Simplex virus, aka "Mono") :)
The C# language is/was ECMA-standardized. The libraries (eg. the "API") most certainly is not. Even disgregarding the legal aspects, the fact of the matter is that the only complete implementation of the .NET stack is Microsoft's. Mono is missing many major components, as detailed in their page:
http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
I hope this is a lesson for all companies and individuals in power (although it's not like they're enlightened enough to read Slashdot) that it is far harder to unwind the damage you do than to compete hard but operate ethically in the first place.
Might be worth perusing the following page: .NET Framework have a long way to go to be useful for me and my customers (while Java is already there). This is why so many bigger businesses stick with Java despite the relatively old-fashioned lack of syntactic sugar (but it is not that bad, really).
http://mono-project.com/Compatibility
Basically, there are colossal holes in portability of C# apps (whether implemented as Mono or C#.Net) due to the library limitations. If you are doing something non-trivial (eg. intending to use something like WPF) and want it portable (since your enterprise customers have chosen their hardware and the bigger they are the less likely their critical servers are Windows, at least in my humble experience). The reason you don't notice a problem is that you are only working on Windows, and possibly have never had to deploy to a really big heterogeneous environment. Personally, I work on a Mac and build a lot of enterprise, web, and client side stuff that I test there and then to deploy to customers that either use Linux or Windows Server. Mono and the
lol!
Great points. Wish I had mod points today.
Good points. In addition, an even worse aspect of C#/Mono than not "officially sanctioned by MS", is Mono simply doesn't have all the 'standard' libraries that you get with C#. At least with Java you get the same thing everywhere (which is why Java still rules the Enterprise space, according to the Tiobe Index etc).
Richard Stallman (of the Free Software Foundation) calls cellphones 'tracking devices' and the last time I heard him talk he refused to carry one. It can be useful if you think of cellphones in that way (they weren't designed as tracking devices, but they're certainly being used that way now).
> It's not a re-definition by Microsoft by any measure, it's merely the classic computer science definition of the term. I agree that in some circles that term has been muddied, specifically in that cross platform means different OS, and possibly different architecture but that's a fundamentally narrow and nonsensical definition of cross platform and again, even then with the differences in software between Windows Phone 7, the Xbox, and Windows on the desktop it's not as if it's particularly the same OS anyway. Really, you're just using a bastardised form of the term, when actually all you want to say is that XNA doesn't really work on non-Microsoft platforms, rather than that it's not cross platform, because clearly it is. Personally I prefer to stick to the more rigorous and logically sound terms of academia than misused often illogical slang usually bred from the hobbyist world.
Piss off. That's simply bullshit. Sounds until very recently (with phones) you were are a Windows-only developer. Well, I have news for you. In the Enterprise (where the real money is for most companies that aren't Apple, Microsoft, or Sony) it is *cross-platform*. And yes, you sometimes need to deliver 3D and hardware accelerated-graphical algorithms to this world. The bigger the customer is the more diverse their environment is. Old stuff, new stuff, and ancient stuff that is the pillar of their business. You don't get to choose what environment it'll run on. Hence, true cross-platform solutions like OpenGL, Java and Oracle dominate the solutions in this space. The thing is, some of those solutions also work very well on the Windows desktop and phones (eg. OpenGL and Java [called Dalvik for licensing reasons]). Sure, if you are pretty much a Windows-only developer then DirectX and XNA are perfectly fine solutions. But then you have to waste time and *money* re-inventing your solutions when your customers force you to different platforms (Android in your case). IMHO (which clearly is not yours) it is better to start with the cross-platform stuff (which also works perfectly well on Windows if you know what you are doing) and use the time and *money* to do other stuff besides re-inventing the wheel. The IT World is becoming more heterogenous again, not less, so targeting Windows-only solutions makes as much sense as those people targeting "Internet Explorer 6, we don't need W3C" solutions half a decade ago (which seems ridiculous now, yes? yet that is a parallel argument you make for XNA - times are changing yet not everyone is scanning the horizon enough to see it or make sense of what is going on).
They're moving people as a precaution. Not because the people *must* move. There is a big difference. That's not to say the 40 year old reactor design is as good as a modern design, but let's get real here.
Yes. If you have lots of money or a Master degree or more it helps.
Come to New Zealand. We have a law that says 'format shifting' is allowed. As long you own the DVD you can copy it to your harddisk. Cool eh? [nb: IANAL]
Mate, 8 year old kids can find DRM free games on the Intertubez. It is not rocket science to find the stuff (although it *is* rocket science to perform the DRM circumvention hacks to begin with).
"However, when I say "cross-platform" I actually don't mean "different versions of Windows and the XBox" (Microsoft's hijacked definition). I actually mean *cross platform*."
"Right, so you mean some arbitrary definition that suits your world view then?"
I'm afraid us old-timers laugh derisively when we here stuff like this. No insult intended though. It's just we've been working in this area long enough that Microsoft's re-definition of *cross-platform* is a recent thing (since we've been developing for decades), incidentally their re-definition ('shifting the goal posts, as it were) was intended to produce exactly your reaction (and neuter the arguments of the veterans at that time).
XNA is indeed nice and OpenGL's lack of support for anything other than graphics and sounds (if we consider OpenAL as well) is pretty lame. It is horses for courses as you say. I'd much rather be able to be productive by re-using all my GLSL skills (which means I don't care about vendor-specific extensions in many cases) all over the place rather than switch tools for each target (which is a style that suits your own workflow, which is cool).
Your comment is completely valid. However, when I say "cross-platform" I actually don't mean "different versions of Windows and the XBox" (Microsoft's hijacked definition). I actually mean *cross platform*. Yes, true cross-platform isn't ever plain sailing. However, DirectX is simply a non-starter in this area.
PCs and the Xbox are not the only places to make money (albeit they are big slices of the pie, it is far better to target the *whole pie* instead of of just two big slices). In fact, they are a large but shrinking proportion of general computing out there. So, I use OpenGL because it gives me flexibility, just like it did for Austen Meyer:
http://techhaze.com/2010/03/interview-with-x-plane-creator-austin-meyer/
Your first statement was
"You can remove the PS3 from that list as nobody uses OpenGL on it."
Your second statement directly contradicts your first. My point was PS3 either accepts OpenGL or libraries (usually integrated into larger development toolkits) built on OpenGL ES/PSGL. DirectX is not an option for the PS3.
Sure, they use toolkits instead. If they want do 'to the metal' optimizations though, they won't be using DirectX for it.
Carmack changed his mind some years ago. This report is quite late.
However, the title of the magazine is "Custom PC". It is worth keeping in mind that if the PC and Xbox are the only platforms you are targeting then DirectX is a valid choice for development technology.
Otherwise, you are better off developing in OpenGL, where you can target PCs, PS3, iPhone, iPad, Mac OS X, WebGL, industrial Unix (not all 3D apps are games, dontchaknow?). The only thing you can't do much with is the Xbox (technically possible, but deliberately closed by Microsoft).
Also, the pace of change in OpenGL has picked up tremendously with the stewardship of the Khronos group. So OpenGL is starting to have parity in features again after lagging for some time (plus, you can get those features on Windows XP for those still on it).
Not only do PC gamers generally have better hardware than consoles (better CPU, GPU, RAM, keyboard, mouse, TrackIR head-tracking), they also get better and more diverse titles.
...
For example, take flight simulators. Consoles have 'flying games' but not 'simulators' per see (not in the class of: X-Plane, FlightSim X, IL-2 Sturmovik, LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS:BlackShark, or DCS:A-10C). Yes, these are 'niche' in terms of the overall game market, but who cares about what the producers think? A product that matches your interest is either available for your platform or it is not. Consoles simple don't have the *breadth* of titles that PCs do.
While Wings of Prey was nice for the consoles (although it looked better on the PC) it really lacks the depth of something like DCS:A-10C (if you have the kit to use the DirectX 11 graphics in 64-bit it is amazing). Have a look at the DCS:A-10C trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8LKJh6Xc0 (not a redirect to goatse, I promise). Or Flaming Cliffs 2 (aka LockOn Platinum): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_hoJNj3ys
IL-2: Cliffs of Dover looks amazing as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVUSp1V3cVw
I bought a PS3 at launch and it is great for casual gaming or gaming in a few genres (FPS, RTS, RPG, racing) . If that's all you want then it is fine. However, the depth of the experience is very shallow to what you can get with a PC. Consoles may make more money for the publishers, but it is certainly not a better experience for players (I personally *hate* not being able to join my mates on some servers since the console doesn't always let me decide which servers to join, which is something you can usually do with a PC). I won't even start discussing modability for PC vs console
Mate, I don't disagree that Egypt effectively 'started it'. However, in terms of the 1967 War it it generally accepted that the opening shots of *that episode* were made by Israel. It is a matter of definition (rightly or wrongly).
I happen to think it was a rational and strategically sound thing for Israel to do given all the signs. Same thing with the 2008 South Ossetian War. The UN report listed the Georgians as starting it while saying there were previous provocations etc etc. It is just a matter of definition. The sad thing is that some people (clearly not you, as you appear very well informed) never ask the "why?" as to the causes of the first shots and each side's postures.
> WRONG. The state of war was already on at the time because Egypt had launched a naval blockade against Israel.
You are in fact incorrect. In the 1967 War Israel is considered to have struck first. In the Yom Kippur War they were prohibited by the US from pre-emptively attacking (with initial disasterous results).
> WRONG again. Israel was relying on French armaments at the time.
You are incorrect again. In 1967 the Israelis used French aircraft but the tanks and ammo (eg. bombs from those aircraft, as I said "ammo") were British or US. The Israeli logistical problem was not a lack of aircraft but the lack of munitions for them. Here's an introduction for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Iranian checks and balances - lol. Tell that to the *peaceful* protestors at the last election. Oh right, you can't, since most of the 'disappeared' (a miracle, just like the Mahdi!). Tell that to Neda Agha-Soltan, that the Supreme Leader and the Government have effective limits on their power. I agree that Iran's Constitution intended for it to be a "representative democracy" as you point out - it is a real shame that it has not turned out like that in reality.
Out of 'rainbow land' you would wait for the other guy to hit you first and hope you are still standing long enough to tell mommy they hit you first. In the Real World it is always better to fight on the other guy's turf, let his civilians get killed and his cities ruined. Harsh, yes, but that is the nature of total war and the struggle to prevent annihilation of your country. The other thing you are missing is asking the "why?" of the Israeli invasions. Read the background and the preceeding events before the wars and you'll learn a lot. In fact, Israel voluntarily relinquished Gaza hoping it would bring peace, what did that get them? They also hold the Golan to stop they Syrians shelling civilians in the Galilee (which the Syrians were doing randomly) and also as a bargaining chip - return Golan and Shebaa in return for peace. Since the Israelis are trying to get their neighbours to sign peace treaties who do you think the real instigators of the fighting are? Tip, those you have to be bribed to agree to a peace.
Bugger off - when this is done it constitutes a 'signal' of your determination to allies, *not a threat to the potential target nation*. Don't you know that *every* country with combat aircraft routinely practices scrambling aircraft and nuclear missions if they have the capability (Britain, US, USSR/Russian, France, India, Pakistan). Iran and Israel both do missile drills. Only one of them states it is to destroy the other. You are reading what you would like to read by selectively interpreting the 'facts', this is well known 'confirmation bias' and you have to strive hard to avoid it (eg. I try to, and form an opinion from there). Doesn't mean you can't reach a conclusion (for the circumstances of a point in time). Incidentally, I have not been to Iran (yet), but have been to very many countries in the Middle East, and do now the difference between was is reported in Western media and how it is on the ground. I have some appreciation of all the sides of the situation. In the case of Iran and Israel the Iranians are the ones being unreasonable.