Actually I said repeatedly that I'd accept criticism. However, not reading my post before commenting, taking me out of context, using various straw man arguments, etc is not constructive or valid.
So yeah... i'm going to flame, turn it to ash, and crush the ashes under my boot.
No mercy. No hesitation. No remorse.
As to the point of red asterisk, I pointed out that this was mostly for the lay community that gets a lot of their science news from the media that is full of a lot of people that don't know any better.
You need to help these people out by making clear whether given findings were reproduced or not.
What I think you'll find is that in some cases the media if they have that point will fixate on it and basically undermine the finding until it is reproduced.
And then the scientists if only out of irritation because the lay community that ultimately pays for everything keeps bring it up... will have it reproduced somewhere thus removing the red asterisk and moving on.
I'm not asking for every little thing to be reproduced. I just think its reasonable for the lay community to not get so easily duped by bad science.
As to it already "effectively" being there... but its not. The lay community is generally totally clueless as to whether a given finding has been verified or not.
So effectively it isn't there FOR THEM.
As to not having money... then don't do it and put the asterisk on your paper. Write the whole thing in crayon on napkins and mail it to your mother with carrier pidgins. Post it as a rhyming blog on facebook... Whatever floats your personal boat.
My point was that if you want to avoid confusion you should hold to certain standards. But who needs them, am I right? Lets just do whatever the hell because its just too expensive.
No really... do that. But then put a disclaimer somewhere... In crayon if that's all you've got... and that way when it hits the media the poor journalists that don't know anything can have a chance at not overstating things.
Here you say but all of that is redundant... its obvious... except it isn't for the laymen. So it isn't redundant. It isn't obvious. Put it on the paper.
If you want to scrawl that in crayon... go for it... just put it there. I'm sure Crayola has a wide selection of red crayons to choose from.
As to money and taxes... you do realize that most of your funding problems stem from the public and politicians not seeing tangible results... right? If you told the people, give us X dollars and we'll produce research that will yield everyone X*100 then you'd get all the money. ALL OF IT.
This is a big factor in a lot of spending. Now you can't ever make those sorts of promises. I appreciate that. But giving people better reporting that is understood and can be turned toward something practical means your funding will flow a lot easier.
Here you're going to tell me it doesn't work that way or I don't understand or something along those lines. Well, that's circular logic. You can always say that isn't how it works. If I advocated a republic type government 4000 years ago you could sit there and say "you don't understand, we have these peasants, and these nobles, and these priests... these guys rule everything and... etc"... I know that. You can do things that way forever if that's what you want.
But then don't bitch when the funding gets tight because the "trust us" argument is only good for limited funding.
If you want the money to flow... you have to give us something more. You have to make us understand.
Actually. Not stupid condescending cartoons. We're not stupid. We're not children. There are a lot of things laymen understand about a lot of things that scientists of whatever description know nothing about.
Lets not treat each other like garbage and instead do our best to help each other come to a common understanding and from that move forward together.
I swear to god... were are there so many fucking illiterate people commenting on this thread?
I already said... and at this point it is four times... "if its impractical to reproduce the research then it gets a red asterisk to a little disclaimer that says "no reproduced"."
You're right, reproducing work by route should cost the exact same amount as doing the initial research from scratch...
or you're pressing post without using your brain.
These sorts of discussions are nothing but irritating because people like you aren't actually arguing or having a discussion. You're just posting the first thing that pops into your head that might be a problem... and you're sloppy about it because you're not thinking about it in any depth and often not reading the full post before you comment.
Its a waste of time. worse, you've got nothing original or novel to bring to the discussion. Why would anyone find your comment to be even a little worth reading? Its got nothing. It isn't insightful. It isn't knowledgeable. It isn't funny. It isn't even brief.
1. I'm not interested in being brow beaten by some fool more interested in winning an argument then in addressing the argument.
If you're going to keep attempting an ad hominem then I'm going to simply not talk to you. And then what will you have accomplished?
This is the internet... be nice or you're getting a flame war.
2. Scientists are paid. You missed the whole point about not assuming that i am defending the current system but rather talking about the problem that the current system was set up to deal with and that will need to be dealt with if we get rid of the current system.
The point is that money goes to scientists and the people that provide that money have a right to expect something be done with it.
Furthermore, they must share information... you don't like the term publish or you're going to get asinine on the issue? fine... We'll start using other words. I'll speak chinese if I need to get you to stop trying to make this a semantics debate.
3. I'm not talking about any journal in particular. They're all suspect because there's no uniform way of doing this and the journals themselves are not audited which is another problem.
4. I specifically said that if it were not practical then the paper gets a big red asterisk next to it's name that says "unverified" or "not reproduced" or whatever.
By all means... put out as much research as you want that no one could possibly verify or reproduce. Make my fucking day. But it gets the red asterisk.
Peers will take that in stride because it won't be that uncommon. But laymen will at least understand what has and has not be verified. That is important. Science cannot be something only scientists understand any more then the law can be something only lawyers understand.
You do that and you create a situation where everyone has to walk around telling each other to "trust" them... and guess what... humans don't work that way.
I don't trust the guy at the bank when he says "oh this home loan is the best for you... I swear"... I don't trust the lawyer that says "oh this is a good contract, sign it"... I don't trust the doctor that says "you don't need a second opinion, get this operation."
And I'm certainly not going to let the scientists get away with a similar argument.
its not acceptable.
So things need to be structured in a reasonable way so that scientists find the process reasonable, those providing funds know that their money isn't being wasted, and the public can use the resulting science without having to just take on faith something some guy said.
doubtless you're going to try and argue that we have to trust them because its just too complicated. I'm not interested in that discussion. My opinion is no. End of that tangent.
6. As to the money to reproduce it, that can be provided by the same institutions that hire the scientists in the first place as part of their quality control policy. Which is in large part what all of this in the first place.
Would that money go to the same scientist or the same type of scientists? Probably not. We might have specialists that ONLY reproduce other people's work. That might be literally all they do. And they might be paid by the scientists that produced the paper who are themselves taking the money from their grants or working budgets as a cost of publishing.
here you'll tell me they don't have enough money to do that... well obviously not because they didn't need to do that before so they weren't given the money to do that.
I'm anticipating the circular arguments from you because you demonstrated several of them above and its making my head throb.
In summary, my point is not a defense of any specific method of auditing work and ensuring people aren't just screwing around.
Rather, my point is a defense of auditing in general.
If you don't like publish or perish then please suggest an alternative that doesn't just let scientists wake up at the crack of 4pm, drink until they pass out, and then do the same tomorrow.
I'm not saying they would do that or they are doing it... I'm saying they are being paid and people being paid have an obligation to the people paying them to give reasonable assurances that they're not just screwing around on paid time.
Publish or Perish is one of the ways scientists show they're not dead weight. If you have other methods then I will of course be open to them.
Okay... I am going to assume you're reasonable and not a loony... and that what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Here is what I want... please throw out your existing notions of what is currently going on or whatever talking point score card you're reading from here...
1. It is reasonable for scientists in the pay of the public to be required at intervals to publish the results or at least what they were currently doing over the past few months or year or whatever interval is deemed reasonable.
2. Works thus published should be subjected to reasonable audits to detect fraud, laziness, waste, or incompetence.
3. The nature of audits should make it difficult or impossible for conflicts of interest to corrupt the auditing process.
4. The auditing process should be sufficient to determine what is and is not valid science.
5. Reproduction of work obviously cannot be done with all papers however, they should be done with all significant work deemed significant.
6. The deeming of significant or insignificant work could be down to collective or crowd sourced choices made by other scientists to cite a given work or say they found it interesting or significant. When X number of scientists say its significant then someone in the community should be tasked with verifying it through reproduction.
Do you have a problem with any of the above?
I do not claim my notions above are perfect and am open to modification. However, the basic gist of my post I think is defensible and if challenged, I will defend it.
If you pay scientists to do science and they are contracted to do it... they fraudulently do not do science yet continue to cash your checks... that is a crime.
Wrong. The issue is that publishing is considered sufficient.
It should be publish or die. How do you know they're doing anything if they don't publish? they could be watching tv all day for all you know otherwise.
But as is made clear here, simply publishing and getting it through peer review is clearly not good enough. We need to increase what they have to do to avoid this situation.
For example... maybe one scientist pays another scientist to reproduce his work.
Maybe you have big collections of graduate students that as part of their process of getting a degree get assigned some random papers submitted by scientists in their field and they have to reproduce the work.
Obviously this isn't always possible... but whenever it isn't possible that needs to be put as a giant red asterisk on the paper saying "this work has not been reproduced"...
Do that and you're not going to get as much fraud or laziness.
What is the difference between an App and a website?
At this point the apps in question are basically clients for a web or internet program.
So really the difference between an app and a website is pretty limited.
Obviously we have no problem with in website purchases. We do those all the time.
And websites through cookies often keep us logged in allowing people to buy things without going through additional steps. Amazon One Click for example lets you go through the whole checkout process very quickly.
But no one has a problem with that.
I think the issue is that the apps link to the amazon or apple or google account even though they're not amazon or apple or google products.
That link to another account is I think the problem here.
Giving a program access to that information should be explicit and optional.
For example, just because I install itunes on a machine doesn't mean I need to link to an itunes or apple account. I don't have to register it with apple at all.
Now if I dont' do that then I can't buy things on the itunes store. But the program still otherwise works.
Same deal throughout. have people reenter their billing information for each app just as they do with websites rather then letting the app access the payment information stored by amazon or google.
depends... onboard sound has a distinct "whine".. you can hear a hiss over the audio channel... other issues... if that doesn't bother you, then its probably fine.
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2014 @04:26PM (#47411267)
And your current phone product portfolio is to be found where? - BB have had a reasonable success in the business compared to the Karmashockphone
Which you defended indifferent to whether you made the post yourself. You personally challenged me to cite the logical fallacy.
I then did so... and now instead of admit I was correct you're attempting to cloud the issue.
It is a fallacy and you current line of reasoning is also a fallacy in that you're attempting to discredit the whole discussion itself... which is a bit like flipping the checkers board over and pissing on the scattered pieces just because someone beat you by the rules.
Its a fallacy. I cited it as such and it is... end of story.
I looked it up a bit and it turns out what you were doing was a subset of the appeal to authority, known as the appeal to accomplishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Examples: ""
"How dare you criticize the prime minister? What do you know about running an entire country?"
"I'll take your opinions on music seriously when you've released a record that went platinum."
"Get back to me when you've built up a multi-billion dollar empire of your own. Until then, shut up." ""
Sure... its probably ad verecundiam... the appeal to authority... aka "group A1 says proposition B2 is correct, therefore it is correct."...
Your whole argument was so fucking stupid though that I'd be surprised if it weren't at least two or more fallacies at once...
Your argument was roughly on a level with the that argument you hear from creationists when you talk to them about evolution... and they say "were you there!?"...
Of course I wasn't there... no one alive was there... but that doesn't mean your premise is valid or that my premise is invalid. Its irrelevant. Sure, if I were there, I could use that as an additional proof... it would be handy. No one in that argument can make that case and in the case of the smartphone industry how many can meet your standard? Pretty much no one. Which means by your moronic logic, no one's opinion is valid and everything done by BB must be f'ing genius.
Which is a very common fallacy. If Einstein said that pi equals 3... it still wouldn't equal 3.
What is more, in your example, we're talking about the makers of the BB who are doing terribly in the market.
Their customers are not renewing their contracts. They're losing business and market share.
So it isn't even Einstein. Sadly they're a bit of a wash out company at this point.
I don't wish them any ill by the way. I'd love for them to come out with something that did well. But making a square phone has to be labeled what it is... meaningless at best and counter productive at worst because as you can see from the rest of the thread... people like like the idea of a square phone.
Now you could argue that these are not their customer's... but I'd disagree with you there because they could very well be their customers IF they were making a real effort to get enterprise accounts.
They're not though. I'm familiar with their products and its not encouraging.
that the game was cripple... would only people with high end hardware notice? Perhaps... but so what? The PC is not the console. Its not a uniform one size fits all platform. You release your game with variable settings that end users can tweak to get the best performance for THEIR machine.
Its how its done. The engine makers build in the hooks to change graphics settings dynamically on the fly with no trouble for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I said repeatedly that I'd accept criticism. However, not reading my post before commenting, taking me out of context, using various straw man arguments, etc is not constructive or valid.
So yeah... i'm going to flame, turn it to ash, and crush the ashes under my boot.
No mercy. No hesitation. No remorse.
As to the point of red asterisk, I pointed out that this was mostly for the lay community that gets a lot of their science news from the media that is full of a lot of people that don't know any better.
You need to help these people out by making clear whether given findings were reproduced or not.
What I think you'll find is that in some cases the media if they have that point will fixate on it and basically undermine the finding until it is reproduced.
And then the scientists if only out of irritation because the lay community that ultimately pays for everything keeps bring it up... will have it reproduced somewhere thus removing the red asterisk and moving on.
I'm not asking for every little thing to be reproduced. I just think its reasonable for the lay community to not get so easily duped by bad science.
As to it already "effectively" being there... but its not. The lay community is generally totally clueless as to whether a given finding has been verified or not.
So effectively it isn't there FOR THEM.
As to not having money... then don't do it and put the asterisk on your paper. Write the whole thing in crayon on napkins and mail it to your mother with carrier pidgins. Post it as a rhyming blog on facebook... Whatever floats your personal boat.
My point was that if you want to avoid confusion you should hold to certain standards. But who needs them, am I right? Lets just do whatever the hell because its just too expensive.
No really... do that. But then put a disclaimer somewhere... In crayon if that's all you've got... and that way when it hits the media the poor journalists that don't know anything can have a chance at not overstating things.
Here you say but all of that is redundant... its obvious... except it isn't for the laymen. So it isn't redundant. It isn't obvious. Put it on the paper.
If you want to scrawl that in crayon... go for it... just put it there. I'm sure Crayola has a wide selection of red crayons to choose from.
As to money and taxes... you do realize that most of your funding problems stem from the public and politicians not seeing tangible results... right? If you told the people, give us X dollars and we'll produce research that will yield everyone X*100 then you'd get all the money. ALL OF IT.
This is a big factor in a lot of spending. Now you can't ever make those sorts of promises. I appreciate that. But giving people better reporting that is understood and can be turned toward something practical means your funding will flow a lot easier.
Here you're going to tell me it doesn't work that way or I don't understand or something along those lines. Well, that's circular logic. You can always say that isn't how it works. If I advocated a republic type government 4000 years ago you could sit there and say "you don't understand, we have these peasants, and these nobles, and these priests... these guys rule everything and... etc"... I know that. You can do things that way forever if that's what you want.
But then don't bitch when the funding gets tight because the "trust us" argument is only good for limited funding.
If you want the money to flow... you have to give us something more. You have to make us understand.
Actually. Not stupid condescending cartoons. We're not stupid. We're not children. There are a lot of things laymen understand about a lot of things that scientists of whatever description know nothing about.
Lets not treat each other like garbage and instead do our best to help each other come to a common understanding and from that move forward together.
Sure, referencing the person you're talking to in a discussion on the internet is plagiarism... if you have no brain at all.
That's fine so long as their fraud doesn't have additional damages to the institutions that employ them.
It is in the interest of such organizations to be harsh with people that take their coin and then try to cheat them.
I swear to god... were are there so many fucking illiterate people commenting on this thread?
I already said... and at this point it is four times... "if its impractical to reproduce the research then it gets a red asterisk to a little disclaimer that says "no reproduced"."
Read, motherfucker.
So until your utopian society comes along I should just accept bullshit?
No. When you hire people, you set up mechanisms to monitor their work and if they're not doing their jobs you fire them.
Otherwise why am I paying these people?
Same deal in pretty much everything.
Your solution is to completely re-engineer the entire society to correct this one issue.
Great plan... totally practical...
You call me a dullard? Do you have a plan that isn't completely halfbaked and impractical or is that all you're good for?
You're right, reproducing work by route should cost the exact same amount as doing the initial research from scratch...
or you're pressing post without using your brain.
These sorts of discussions are nothing but irritating because people like you aren't actually arguing or having a discussion. You're just posting the first thing that pops into your head that might be a problem... and you're sloppy about it because you're not thinking about it in any depth and often not reading the full post before you comment.
Its a waste of time. worse, you've got nothing original or novel to bring to the discussion. Why would anyone find your comment to be even a little worth reading? Its got nothing. It isn't insightful. It isn't knowledgeable. It isn't funny. It isn't even brief.
An utter vacuum of worth.
Yeah that's what I was advocating captain strawman... everyone that ever stumbles should be shot in the face with a chainsawgun.
*yawn*
Either read what people write before coming up with a opinion about it or don't press send.
1. I'm not interested in being brow beaten by some fool more interested in winning an argument then in addressing the argument.
If you're going to keep attempting an ad hominem then I'm going to simply not talk to you. And then what will you have accomplished?
This is the internet... be nice or you're getting a flame war.
2. Scientists are paid. You missed the whole point about not assuming that i am defending the current system but rather talking about the problem that the current system was set up to deal with and that will need to be dealt with if we get rid of the current system.
The point is that money goes to scientists and the people that provide that money have a right to expect something be done with it.
Furthermore, they must share information... you don't like the term publish or you're going to get asinine on the issue? fine... We'll start using other words. I'll speak chinese if I need to get you to stop trying to make this a semantics debate.
3. I'm not talking about any journal in particular. They're all suspect because there's no uniform way of doing this and the journals themselves are not audited which is another problem.
4. I specifically said that if it were not practical then the paper gets a big red asterisk next to it's name that says "unverified" or "not reproduced" or whatever.
By all means... put out as much research as you want that no one could possibly verify or reproduce. Make my fucking day. But it gets the red asterisk.
Peers will take that in stride because it won't be that uncommon. But laymen will at least understand what has and has not be verified. That is important. Science cannot be something only scientists understand any more then the law can be something only lawyers understand.
You do that and you create a situation where everyone has to walk around telling each other to "trust" them... and guess what... humans don't work that way.
I don't trust the guy at the bank when he says "oh this home loan is the best for you... I swear"... I don't trust the lawyer that says "oh this is a good contract, sign it"... I don't trust the doctor that says "you don't need a second opinion, get this operation."
And I'm certainly not going to let the scientists get away with a similar argument.
its not acceptable.
So things need to be structured in a reasonable way so that scientists find the process reasonable, those providing funds know that their money isn't being wasted, and the public can use the resulting science without having to just take on faith something some guy said.
doubtless you're going to try and argue that we have to trust them because its just too complicated. I'm not interested in that discussion. My opinion is no. End of that tangent.
6. As to the money to reproduce it, that can be provided by the same institutions that hire the scientists in the first place as part of their quality control policy. Which is in large part what all of this in the first place.
Would that money go to the same scientist or the same type of scientists? Probably not. We might have specialists that ONLY reproduce other people's work. That might be literally all they do. And they might be paid by the scientists that produced the paper who are themselves taking the money from their grants or working budgets as a cost of publishing.
here you'll tell me they don't have enough money to do that... well obviously not because they didn't need to do that before so they weren't given the money to do that.
I'm anticipating the circular arguments from you because you demonstrated several of them above and its making my head throb.
A progress report TO the public that is audit-able is what we've always wanted.
I think I answered this point in this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
In summary, my point is not a defense of any specific method of auditing work and ensuring people aren't just screwing around.
Rather, my point is a defense of auditing in general.
If you don't like publish or perish then please suggest an alternative that doesn't just let scientists wake up at the crack of 4pm, drink until they pass out, and then do the same tomorrow.
I'm not saying they would do that or they are doing it... I'm saying they are being paid and people being paid have an obligation to the people paying them to give reasonable assurances that they're not just screwing around on paid time.
Publish or Perish is one of the ways scientists show they're not dead weight. If you have other methods then I will of course be open to them.
I await your alternatives.
Okay... I am going to assume you're reasonable and not a loony... and that what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Here is what I want... please throw out your existing notions of what is currently going on or whatever talking point score card you're reading from here...
1. It is reasonable for scientists in the pay of the public to be required at intervals to publish the results or at least what they were currently doing over the past few months or year or whatever interval is deemed reasonable.
2. Works thus published should be subjected to reasonable audits to detect fraud, laziness, waste, or incompetence.
3. The nature of audits should make it difficult or impossible for conflicts of interest to corrupt the auditing process.
4. The auditing process should be sufficient to determine what is and is not valid science.
5. Reproduction of work obviously cannot be done with all papers however, they should be done with all significant work deemed significant.
6. The deeming of significant or insignificant work could be down to collective or crowd sourced choices made by other scientists to cite a given work or say they found it interesting or significant. When X number of scientists say its significant then someone in the community should be tasked with verifying it through reproduction.
Do you have a problem with any of the above?
I do not claim my notions above are perfect and am open to modification. However, the basic gist of my post I think is defensible and if challenged, I will defend it.
I was quoting someone else... please correct them instead... *yawn*
If you pay scientists to do science and they are contracted to do it... they fraudulently do not do science yet continue to cash your checks... that is a crime.
If you had read what I said, then you'd see my post addressed your criticism of that one out of context quote.
Wrong. The issue is that publishing is considered sufficient.
It should be publish or die. How do you know they're doing anything if they don't publish? they could be watching tv all day for all you know otherwise.
But as is made clear here, simply publishing and getting it through peer review is clearly not good enough. We need to increase what they have to do to avoid this situation.
For example... maybe one scientist pays another scientist to reproduce his work.
Maybe you have big collections of graduate students that as part of their process of getting a degree get assigned some random papers submitted by scientists in their field and they have to reproduce the work.
Obviously this isn't always possible... but whenever it isn't possible that needs to be put as a giant red asterisk on the paper saying "this work has not been reproduced"...
Do that and you're not going to get as much fraud or laziness.
What is the difference between an App and a website?
At this point the apps in question are basically clients for a web or internet program.
So really the difference between an app and a website is pretty limited.
Obviously we have no problem with in website purchases. We do those all the time.
And websites through cookies often keep us logged in allowing people to buy things without going through additional steps. Amazon One Click for example lets you go through the whole checkout process very quickly.
But no one has a problem with that.
I think the issue is that the apps link to the amazon or apple or google account even though they're not amazon or apple or google products.
That link to another account is I think the problem here.
Giving a program access to that information should be explicit and optional.
For example, just because I install itunes on a machine doesn't mean I need to link to an itunes or apple account. I don't have to register it with apple at all.
Now if I dont' do that then I can't buy things on the itunes store. But the program still otherwise works.
Same deal throughout. have people reenter their billing information for each app just as they do with websites rather then letting the app access the payment information stored by amazon or google.
depends... onboard sound has a distinct "whine".. you can hear a hiss over the audio channel... other issues... if that doesn't bother you, then its probably fine.
I was responding to this post:
Which you defended indifferent to whether you made the post yourself. You personally challenged me to cite the logical fallacy.
I then did so... and now instead of admit I was correct you're attempting to cloud the issue.
It is a fallacy and you current line of reasoning is also a fallacy in that you're attempting to discredit the whole discussion itself... which is a bit like flipping the checkers board over and pissing on the scattered pieces just because someone beat you by the rules.
Its a fallacy. I cited it as such and it is... end of story.
You can't natively run most linux programs on your phone. That would help.
Isn't the blackphone even better?
I looked it up a bit and it turns out what you were doing was a subset of the appeal to authority, known as the appeal to accomplishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Examples:
""
"How dare you criticize the prime minister? What do you know about running an entire country?"
"I'll take your opinions on music seriously when you've released a record that went platinum."
"Get back to me when you've built up a multi-billion dollar empire of your own. Until then, shut up."
""
So there you go... eat a dick.
Sure... its probably ad verecundiam... the appeal to authority... aka "group A1 says proposition B2 is correct, therefore it is correct."...
Your whole argument was so fucking stupid though that I'd be surprised if it weren't at least two or more fallacies at once...
Your argument was roughly on a level with the that argument you hear from creationists when you talk to them about evolution... and they say "were you there!?"...
Of course I wasn't there... no one alive was there... but that doesn't mean your premise is valid or that my premise is invalid. Its irrelevant. Sure, if I were there, I could use that as an additional proof... it would be handy. No one in that argument can make that case and in the case of the smartphone industry how many can meet your standard? Pretty much no one. Which means by your moronic logic, no one's opinion is valid and everything done by BB must be f'ing genius.
Which is a very common fallacy. If Einstein said that pi equals 3... it still wouldn't equal 3.
What is more, in your example, we're talking about the makers of the BB who are doing terribly in the market.
Their customers are not renewing their contracts. They're losing business and market share.
So it isn't even Einstein. Sadly they're a bit of a wash out company at this point.
I don't wish them any ill by the way. I'd love for them to come out with something that did well. But making a square phone has to be labeled what it is... meaningless at best and counter productive at worst because as you can see from the rest of the thread... people like like the idea of a square phone.
Now you could argue that these are not their customer's... but I'd disagree with you there because they could very well be their customers IF they were making a real effort to get enterprise accounts.
They're not though. I'm familiar with their products and its not encouraging.
that the game was cripple... would only people with high end hardware notice? Perhaps... but so what? The PC is not the console. Its not a uniform one size fits all platform. You release your game with variable settings that end users can tweak to get the best performance for THEIR machine.
Its how its done. The engine makers build in the hooks to change graphics settings dynamically on the fly with no trouble for a reason.
Just offer it and move on.
... on this crap as they did on training the existing work force we'd be just fine.
You're right... no one has a right to opinion about anything that they haven't personally done.
For example, have you ever cut your dick off? Then how do you know?
Your argument is a logical fallacy. Don't annoy people logical errors that were determined and labeled over 2000 years ago. Its ignorant.