I started off quake with doom style keyboard-for-everything but after a while of being only second best I moved to mouse for aiming and firing and keyboard for moving and weapons selection.
I wanted to badly enough and it took maybe half an hour to get right and was well worth it. I could switch from moving backwards to moving sideways at the right time as I used the mouse to change my direction.
Now may be a good time to remind everyone that not all Christians are blind christian wackos.
Group-think clubs exist in all sorts of guises.
Faith, though, helps all kinds of people see, live by and act on that which they could not know, and is to many people very useful in that respect; and also naturally closely tied to hope.
I have faith that by acting I will get what I hope for, and therefore I act.
And maybe after a few years they'd get real good at only picking the really dangerous crazies, and not "treat" or lock up too many non-crazies by accident.
Of course, they'd never know...
Maybe they should just lockup a random 10% of the population and make wild claims about reduced deaths due to violence. They might even achieve 10%, or more by totally eradicating certain social groups. Of course the elite would then have to be allocated "boring employment duties", but perhaps they would rather have boring jobs done by crazies who occasionally shoot eachother.
In other words: who is trying to solve what problem and how will we know if it works?
It gives some good reasons for business people to avoid Trend Micro, most importantly because we want to avoid a trend of suppliers suing each-others users as it stifles the marketplace.
Would you support a company that sued its competitors users?
SCO sued their own customers which is one thing, but if the bad trend of sueing your competitors users takes hold it will be bad for commerce all round as no-one will want to buy any software for fear of having their expected return on investment nullified.
Trend's bad trend is bad for global software business and all software businesses should sit on trend until they stop damaging the markingplace which is the last thing we need in the current economy.
just to be clear, an ad homenim attack as an attack on the argument when seen by the attacked, but not neccessarily when seen by neutral observers, which is why those attacks draw on the opponents own character and behaviours.
e.g. police chief: speeding fines reduce speeding citizen: but weren't you caught speeding last week
The ad homenim argument is that "the fine didn't stop you speeding, so your argument doesn't work does it."
Logically this is stupid because the police chief wasn't arguing that it would stop everyone (or him) from speeding.
Also, the citizens argument would not be effective when re-worked as "But Joe Bloggs was caught speeding last week"
An ad homenim argument would not be "But I caught you stealing last week" or "You smell".
anyway... nuff said I think, I'll let you have the last word
I think we must disagree then. Although you quote instances of ad homenim, I think you misunderstand them.
Appealing to the opponents inconsistencies is only ad homenim because it requires him to denounce his past behaviour in order to maintain his argument, or change his argument in order to (as he sees it) maintain his consistency.
Observers may not care one jot for his past behaviour which can have little logical effect on the value or consistency of the argument itself.
Originally I wasn't trying to provide a definition just an explanation which was over simplistic. Many people think that any attack of the mesenger is ad hominem, which classically is not so, although works of common usage like a dictionary or google may report it as so.
but I believe I went on to follow your advice, in providing references and citations of the classical definition.
I agree with what is tiring, which is why I posted my correction.
Your recent post suggests that you think the claim of ad hominem attack is valid. I still fail too se this. DO I correcly understand tha you think that my definition was correct apart from the abuse of "only", i.e. if the observers are neutral?
I think my difficulty was that you didn't say much at all (either time) and so I was left guessing. I though you were defending the grandparent, not picking on my broad use of "only".
Sure maybe some observers also might consider it an attack on their own holding of the proponents argument, I meant neutral observers.
However I'm still guessing at what you point was/is, I wonder if there is a name for that stratagem.
Another trick is to use arguments ad hominem, or ex concessis When your opponent makes a proposition, you must try to see whether it is not in some way--if needs be, only apparently--inconsistent with some other proposition which he has made or admitted, or with the principles of a school or sect which he has commended and approved, or with the actions of those who support the sect, or else of those who give it only an apparent and spurious support, or with his own actions or want of action. For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" Should he maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, "Why don't you leave by the first train?"
there! now you can read it too!
Ad hominem is not merely attacking the messenger, it is using a facet of the messenger to contradict the argument in the mind of the messenger.
No it isn't, you misunderstood what you read on Wikipedia.
Saying he spends 18 hours a day online is merely attacking the person.
An ad hominem attack is to draw from the agument and its proposer an implication that the proposer cannot admit, thus forcing them to withdraw, even though observers can admit that implication.
Read "The Art of Controversy" if you want to learn more.
ad hominem doesn't mean attacking the messenger it means an atack of the message that only the messenger recognizes as valid; I.e. its an attack to him and not to others; e.g.
It sounds like you took some proprietary rubbish masquerading as FOSS; but even if it was FOSS, it's just like a return ticket for a holiday it's ALWAYS possible to leave it too late to exercise your rights...... and as you said, you left it too long, if it was FOSS then it wasn't vendor lock-in it was user-lockout.
But I've seen some sourceforge projects that never released source, and it's obvious that they aren't FOSS until they do.
Slashdot Mirror
BBC Micro also did that.
I played a game that was mode two for half the screen and then some other text-ish mode mode 6 or something further down the screen.
One really daring game I read of was switching to mode 7 halfway down the screen for text.
Sam
I started off quake with doom style keyboard-for-everything but after a while of being only second best I moved to mouse for aiming and firing and keyboard for moving and weapons selection.
I wanted to badly enough and it took maybe half an hour to get right and was well worth it. I could switch from moving backwards to moving sideways at the right time as I used the mouse to change my direction.
Sam
Maybe 20fps IS fast enough for games IFF the frame generate time is small enough that the frame data is not stale when displayed.
i.e. 20fps is OK providing the frame generation time is still 1/60 second.
which is pretty close to what you said, but we are in the nit picking sub-thread.
I think you got OPENIN mixed with OPENOUT.
OPENOUT became OPENUP
Sam
Now may be a good time to remind everyone that not all Christians are blind christian wackos.
Group-think clubs exist in all sorts of guises.
Faith, though, helps all kinds of people see, live by and act on that which they could not know, and is to many people very useful in that respect; and also naturally closely tied to hope.
I have faith that by acting I will get what I hope for, and therefore I act.
Sam
If every-one had that information then the shortcut would be busier.
You may prefer to keep it quiet!
And maybe after a few years they'd get real good at only picking the really dangerous crazies, and not "treat" or lock up too many non-crazies by accident.
Of course, they'd never know...
Maybe they should just lockup a random 10% of the population and make wild claims about reduced deaths due to violence. They might even achieve 10%, or more by totally eradicating certain social groups. Of course the elite would then have to be allocated "boring employment duties", but perhaps they would rather have boring jobs done by crazies who occasionally shoot eachother.
In other words: who is trying to solve what problem and how will we know if it works?
Sam
What if they want Canonical to _have_ to take investors in order to successfully win the court case?
They might not care if it wins the court case as long as their puppets were able to invest.
Sam
Well, take a look at http://badtrend.org/
It gives some good reasons for business people to avoid Trend Micro, most importantly because we want to avoid a trend of suppliers suing each-others users as it stifles the marketplace.
Sam
Would you support a company that sued its competitors users?
SCO sued their own customers which is one thing, but if the bad trend of sueing your competitors users takes hold it will be bad for commerce all round as no-one will want to buy any software for fear of having their expected return on investment nullified.
Trend's bad trend is bad for global software business and all software businesses should sit on trend until they stop damaging the markingplace which is the last thing we need in the current economy.
Sam
Well... I was taught it meant "attack to the man", one that the man perceives as an attack to the argument even though it is actually not.
which _is_ what I illustrated
anyway...
I said you could have the last word, but to be truly fair I have to recant that.
And that.
I think you are right, and my original teacher was teaching only one form of ad hominem, certainly not the abusive form.
thanks for taking the time to educate me.
Sam
just to be clear, an ad homenim attack as an attack on the argument when seen by the attacked, but not neccessarily when seen by neutral observers, which is why those attacks draw on the opponents own character and behaviours.
e.g.
police chief: speeding fines reduce speeding
citizen: but weren't you caught speeding last week
The ad homenim argument is that "the fine didn't stop you speeding, so your argument doesn't work does it."
Logically this is stupid because the police chief wasn't arguing that it would stop everyone (or him) from speeding.
Also, the citizens argument would not be effective when re-worked as "But Joe Bloggs was caught speeding last week"
An ad homenim argument would not be "But I caught you stealing last week" or "You smell".
anyway... nuff said I think, I'll let you have the last word
I think we must disagree then. Although you quote instances of ad homenim, I think you misunderstand them.
Appealing to the opponents inconsistencies is only ad homenim because it requires him to denounce his past behaviour in order to maintain his argument, or change his argument in order to (as he sees it) maintain his consistency.
Observers may not care one jot for his past behaviour which can have little logical effect on the value or consistency of the argument itself.
Sam
Interesting advice, thanks.
Originally I wasn't trying to provide a definition just an explanation which was over simplistic. Many people think that any attack of the mesenger is ad hominem, which classically is not so, although works of common usage like a dictionary or google may report it as so.
but I believe I went on to follow your advice, in providing references and citations of the classical definition.
Sam
I agree with what is tiring, which is why I posted my correction.
Your recent post suggests that you think the claim of ad hominem attack is valid. I still fail too se this.
DO I correcly understand tha you think that my definition was correct apart from the abuse of "only", i.e. if the observers are neutral?
Sam
I think my difficulty was that you didn't say much at all (either time) and so I was left guessing. I though you were defending the grandparent, not picking on my broad use of "only".
Sure maybe some observers also might consider it an attack on their own holding of the proponents argument, I meant neutral observers.
However I'm still guessing at what you point was/is, I wonder if there is a name for that stratagem.
Sam
Instead of a decent book on "logic" how about "The Art of Controversy"
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html
Stratagem XVI.
Another trick is to use arguments ad hominem, or ex concessis When your opponent makes a proposition, you must try to see whether it is not in some way--if needs be, only apparently--inconsistent with some other proposition which he has made or admitted, or with the principles of a school or sect which he has commended and approved, or with the actions of those who support the sect, or else of those who give it only an apparent and spurious support, or with his own actions or want of action. For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" Should he maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, "Why don't you leave by the first train?"
there! now you can read it too!
Ad hominem is not merely attacking the messenger, it is using a facet of the messenger to contradict the argument in the mind of the messenger.
Sam
No it isn't, you misunderstood what you read on Wikipedia.
Saying he spends 18 hours a day online is merely attacking the person.
An ad hominem attack is to draw from the agument and its proposer an implication that the proposer cannot admit, thus forcing them to withdraw, even though observers can admit that implication.
Read "The Art of Controversy" if you want to learn more.
Sam
ad hominem doesn't mean attacking the messenger it means an atack of the message that only the messenger recognizes as valid; I.e. its an attack to him and not to others; e.g.
"that would mean there is no gods"
Sam
The next step is to learn to mistrust, then when to trust and how to form (and break) alliances.
Then their character wil be as dubious as humans and we won't trust them to be our overlords any more.
Sam
Good advice.
There is a whole financial industry for a reason. Why get into the finance business when you really want to be in the software business?
If a lot of your customers need finance, do a deal with a finance company to make it easy to provide finance for your deadbeat customers.
You get the cash up front and the customer can sell their own soul.
Sam
Well.... I did have to read the source to find out about nudge!!!!!
pidgin supports nudge, just type: /nudge
It does support MSN's ghastly animated emotes
Sam
It sounds like you took some proprietary rubbish masquerading as FOSS; but even if it was FOSS, it's just like a return ticket for a holiday it's ALWAYS possible to leave it too late to exercise your rights... ... and as you said, you left it too long, if it was FOSS then it wasn't vendor lock-in it was user-lockout.
But I've seen some sourceforge projects that never released source, and it's obvious that they aren't FOSS until they do.
Sam