Robocopy is nice, but it's a command line utility and once you issue the command, you can't make changes. (Yes I know about/z recovery but that re-scans everything) Furthermore excluding specific files is a pain in the arse. To add insult to injury the latest version only works on Vista. What's needed is a graphical utility that lets you change your mind about what you're copying mid stream, lets you specify inclusions and exclusions easily.
Why is it that in 2008 file copy is such an ordeal? Windows explorer is a joke for large directories. One failure and it's good luck starting that file copy again friend! Oh you set off a file copy 12 hours ago. Pity there's a dialog up there stuck waiting for a response. When that's what you're competing with, it's easy to do better.
Have you taken a look at synctoy? So promising, but again issues with restart, and sadly issues handling large directories. A tree view would be nice instead of enabling and disabling different files in the preview.
With even something as simple as file copy so badly broken, is it any wonder that my phone and bluetooth software are buggy? Or that a restart is the best cure to 90% of problems?
For every white on black by default graphics app you can find, I can find two more which are black on white by default. Including the most widely used art app of them all: Photoshop.
For every stupid trollish argument you make I can counter with reason and logic.
I don't care how many apps you can find. I was only showing that it was reasonable and that there are people who've given the topic considerable thought and prefer less distracting WoB. I've done that no matter how many examples of interfaces with BoW you find.
Which, like most software markets, is a minority. If you could demonstrate that most software markets are demonstrating a majority trend toward white on black, you'd have a compelling argument.
Since I was never trying to demonstrate that most software markets have moved to white on black, you must be arguing with someone else. Seriously, quit with that same lame fucking straw man would you? My original argument was that on the whole we're so use to black on white that we're not considering that may not be the best solution. My second argument (or to be accurate my first counter-argument) was that it is not just basement dwelling misfits that experience less eye strain with WoB as you have repeatedly suggested or blatantly stated. Your harping on about majority vs minority does not address either of those arguments. If you do find someone stupid enough to suggest that the majority of interfaces in 2008 are WoB, please continue arguing with them. In the meantime stop putting such asinine words into my mouth. You pull crap like that repeatedly, constantly ignore me asking you to stop, and then wonder why I think you're a complete asshole, and stupid to boot?
That is correct. A recent, yet still minority trend in a single software market hardly constitutes evidence that white on black is the ideal choice for all content displayed on a computer screen.
It's amazing how logically inconsistent you are. Since you made the assertion, you state it as fact, and dismiss it out of hand. If I made such an assertion you'd start rabbiting on about how the onus is on me to prove it. I suppose that's your idea of being a good debater. I assure you it's not. Even your tone makes you come across as a complete smug prat. Recent minority trend indeed. We're talking about expensive top of the line photo editors used by most commercial graphic artists, not some piece of shareware crap that 3 geeks use. Single software market indeed. That single software market you speak of constitutes the graphic arts industry.
Even after finishing my Astronomy masters, I'm finding new insights in this book. It doesn't go into the heavy math though. http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/
Children are not property, and cannot be bought and sold.
Sure they can be, if your freedom is absolute, you're free to treat others like property.
I shouldn't even need to explain the difference here. Surely you are capable of determining the difference between voluntarily entering into a contract, and murder. How you got modded "insightful" with harebrained, ridiculous examples like this is beyond me.
"I shouldn't even need to explain the difference here." translates to "I can't provide a good argument so I'll just say it should be obvious". You're just trolling.
People can become slaves. I take it you don't know much about the BDSM community, do you?
They're not actually slaves and the agreements you're entering into. It's true I know nothing first hand about the BDSM community but you appear to know even less. If A agrees to be B's slave, B can still be arrested and charged if B mutilates or murders A even with A's consent.
Familiarity is nice to avoid retraining, but you won't be attracting any new users/devs with ugly interfaces. Sounds shallow but its a fact of life. Aesthetics matter.
Do you work for a marketing department by any chance? I hear someone like you saying "Yes I know it's buggy, yes I know they'll need to be re-trained, but we need to release now since our grass roots (astroturf) campaign is ready to launch.
Ir doesn't work. You release a shiny new interface that's broken as hell, and you may get a few shallow idiot users onboard but the more intelligent ones will avoid it like the plague and tell everyone loud and clear how crap it is. I know a lot of users that would be happier with an ugly app that works than a glossy shiny one that is broken.
If the proprietary code in question ever becomes an issue, a viable open-sourced replacement will suddenly become more popular.
Then why don't we have viable 3d open source 3D drivers for graphics cards? I could waste my time naming lots of other examples.
Assuming equivalent enough functionality of course. If not, well then its time to get coding!
Time for who to get coding?
Your car should do everything you want it to. If you don't like the way it works, it's time to get engineering and manufacturing.
See how ridiculous that sounds? Asking an unskilled user of a motor vehicle to become an engineer and mechanic. That's not very different to telling end users to write their own code.
Slavery it is not. Remember that freedom isn't just about allowing users to do as you think they should - it's about the users being free to do whatever they want, including entering into contracts you might find onerous
No, freedom has never EVER been about being free to do whatever you want. I presume you're American? Funny that you should bring up slavery. The founding fathers of your country opposed slavery. Yet by your argument a person should be allowed to enter into a contract to become a slave if they wish. So why oppose it? We should all be free, right? If you don't like that example, if everyone is free, surely you should be free to sell your children into prostitution? Surely you should be free to murder someone if you feel like it, right?
Well it turns out that you should be free to do what you wish, WITHIN LIMITS. Those limits are determined by the law, and that should be driven by what effect your actions can have on society as a whole. If people were permitted to become slaves, this would have an impact on society, not just those involved in the contract.
Absolute freedom isn't a good idea - it isn't even logically self consistent. You end up impinging on the freedom of others. So you have to trade off freedoms.
The following of an idea has no correlation with its degree of ridiculousness.
What rubbish. If an idea isn't logically consistent within itself it's not possible to follow it.
Okay. Results
Results support that it's possible to be logically consistent and hold the position that I do, but as predicted you manage to dismiss out of hand, then....
Sorry. Argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't cut it. But if you believe there are some who will support your position, I'd enjoy reading their hopefully well researched papers on the subject.
Nor does Reductio ad absurdum. Nor do straw men. Things at which you are adept.
Do you even understand what Argumentum ad verecundiam means or are you pulling the latin phrases out of your arse via wikipedia? It is YOU that's making the appeal to authority by asking me to provide you with research papers while dismissing anecdotal evidence, articles, and discussion. See "Examples of appeals to authority" under Argumentum ad verecundiam in wikipedia. Your argument is classic Argumentum ad verecundiam since you refuse to acknowledge evidence unless it's from a research paper.
Secondly, do you even see the irony in, throughout the course of the discussion, singing your own praises, claiming to be a magnificent debater whose logical prowess impresses friends and strangers alike, then accusing me of Argumentum ad verecundiam?
You're a turkey. Honestly, every single time you try to sound clever you come up with something amusing because it's so much more idiotic than your last blunder. How you can think you're a magnificent logical debater is beyond me.
But if you believe there are some who will support your position, I'd enjoy reading their hopefully well researched papers on the subject.
Okay I'll go commission one for you right away. I bet you'd dismiss that too. It won't be by the right scientist, yeah?
Can't wait for your next inane response. Only wish it was more challenging to respond.
I agree with you. My favourite part was when the interviewer cut off the interviewee. Brilliant technique I thought. Why he has the makings of a slashdot troll.
It is to be interpreted as I further clarified in this post: "I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen. These people would easily suffer from eye strain. The consistency of the same color scheme on both paper and the computer screen is appreciated in such scenarios and these scenarios are very common."
Yeah, thanks for changing your story, I mean err clarifying. I can only respond to what you write at the time. I can't read your mind. I can only guess at your intent based on your attitude.
No, the statistical study I cited demonstrated that the people tested found white on black to be almost as readable as black on white, especially compared to the harsher combinations such as red on green.
What the fuck does red on green have to do with it you turkey? Another pathetic attempt at misdirection. Take a look at your own damn study and look at how close the numbers are from BoW vs WoB. I've never argued you should use weird harsh combinations and trying to even imply WoB is in the same category isn't supported by the very evidence you presented.
How is it relevant? What does that prove? It most certainly does not prove white on black is more readable than black on white.
It proves that your attempt to ridicule my choice is ridiculous in and of itself because a large number of people, not much less than those that prefer BoW like it. My argument was that we're preferring BoW because we're use to it from centuries of experience with paper.
Legitimately.
Illegitimately. You persist with the misdirection. You persist with the lies. You persist with the insults. You insist that my point of view is not valid, and you wonder why I think you're a piece of shit???
Can you clarify this? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here.
What I'm talking about is preference being affected by familiarity. If that doesn't make sense to you I don't have time for a comprehension lesson, or a lesson on statistical analysis.
I do, that's why I've been continuing to ignore your ad hominems.
Garbage. Anything I present you either don't understand (or pretend you don't) or you rubbish as invalid. You don't even want to take the evidence you present into account. Then you get pissed off that I won't present you with more evidence to shoot down illogically. I think you just need the last word, which is half the reason I'm having fun with you. I don't think you can let it go, even though if you're honest with yourself you've lost this argument. Not because I'm a world class debater but because your a weak one, and because I won't continue to feed your trolling by presenting more evidence. I've presented you with all the evidence a sane rational person needs to agree that I hold a legitimate and not uncommon point of view. You insist despite this that I don't. Your problem.
That idea is actually part of my argument. As I've stated above, consistency is very important. If you have to constantly switch from a paper medium to a computer screen (such as someone doing data entry), the constant contrast inversion can be extremely eye straining.
Consistency? You mean like your arguments and clarifications are consistent?
How many documents do you actually print out anyway? How many of them become unreadable if you print inverse? Then there's the ability to hit a print preview or even set preferences if that's what you prefer. Trouble is unless you're an advanced user you're not choosing the colour of your web pages or the background colour of most apps.
If you are so correct, please explain why newer version of photo editing software - major packages like Corel Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom - are shipping with a black theme by default. Explain why black firefox themes are so widely varied. Explain why they saw fit to include the ability to use a dark background in the latest versions of office. I'll tell you w
Then quote a passage I've written to the contrary.
Okay: "Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency."
How else is that to be interpreted other than that I hold an unusual or strange position?
If I wasted more time I'd find more. Stop wasting my time.
No, I stated that the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that white on black is superior to black on white since your position is in the minority.
A steaming pile of BS.
That is not my argument. That is a subjective conclusion I've drawn based on my argument.
You're the one who used the word ridiculous and said that using ridicule was valid.
Stop wasting my time. Stop saying it's not what you said. You're just outright lying, pure and simple.
The closeness is irrelevant. The legibility study proved with statistical significance that black on white is more legible than white on black
The closeness is very relevant if you're calling me ridiculous for holding that view.
The study only proved a slight preference of black on white over white on black. It didn't and couldn't take into account factors such as what a user is accustomed to etc. What other assumptions were made? What other biases could be avoided.
. What is relevant is the fact that this study proves black on white is more legible which explains why it is the majority preference for content on the internet.
It most certainly did not prove that. I could probably find several studies that counter. Will I do that for someone that behaves like you do? Nup.
Present valid contrary evidence that disproves my "pre-conceived notion" that black on white is more legible than white on black and I'll be more than happy to concede the point.
Where you get to decide what is and isn't valid? Yeah there's a worthwhile hobby and a good use of my time. I've presented evidence. You've dismissed it. You've lied, you've manipulated and you've ridiculed. I'm suppose to waste time trying to convince you? Idiot.
Sure it does. The correct choice is the color scheme most people find the most legible.
Again BS. What would people choose if they had use to get something they weren't already use to? What would people choose if the text was customised to be readable as white on black?
You can't simply define your own criteria for success and then shove it down my throat you troll.
You said "we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic." This implies that black on white text is a "problematic convention" and that your stated preference of white on black is superior. If that's what you believe, you must substantiate it. That's what I've been waiting for.
Fuck off. Who the fuck are you? Who says I have to do anything? Who made you my boss? What you're saying is that because I've publicly stated an opinion on an internet forum I somehow owe you something. I owe you nothing and I don't have to substantiate anything to an insulting deceitful troll. Must be fun going around thinking the world owes you something. Fits in well with the rest of your pompous arrogant rant. You need help buddy.
Since it is obvious that continuing to deny these repeated baseless accusations will serve only to waste my time, I'll instead respond with this: I'm sorry you feel that way, but I doubt posterity will agree with your assessment of my conduct as that's neither what actually happened nor my intent.
Stick it up your posterity. What you do or don't doubt doesn't interest me. I've seen you flip flop time and time again on what you were arguing. I've seen you deny positions you've held. I've seen you accuse me of a lack of decorum when you were the first to display this. I'm sure you don't see it that way because you're incapable of following a logical train of thought but I'm not your educator and it's not my problem.
Imagine your commercial airliner whipping out a big camera to look at its underside to see if it is safe to land. That's what the shuttle does. It's a joke!
Be fair. Imagine your commercial airliner reaching Mach 25, the wings reaching 1650 C, and landing without powered thrust.
Many very intelligent people have worked on the tile problem. Using a camera to double check nothing has fallen off (because dispite their efforts material still does) is a good move despite the ridicule.
The US has had less than one fatal accident per decade since the space program started; the Apollo fire and the two shuttle disasters. I'd say their safety record is pretty good.
Exploration is dangerous. 20 or so people out of how many? A few hundred? That's not great actually. Human beings have to be prepared to accept those risks if they wish to explore. That's the price of the (at least potential) benefits you get. If you don't want to do it, stay home.
People put themselves in harms way all of the time to pursue their ambitions regardless of whether or not it helps humanity. If we can have mountain climbers, and race car drivers, who do it soley for the glory, arguing that we shouldn't have astronauts on the basis of safety is nuts.
Nowadays you want to fly a plane? You load up Flight Simulator. While this might teach you the controls, it won't teach you squat about centers of gravity, airfoils, structures, or thrust.
You're talking about an arcade flight simulator (or a good flight simulator set to arcade mode). Arcade flight sims are not much different to arcade shooters or pac-man. Of course you're not going to build skill.
MS flight simulator 2004 lets you model C.O.G., you can tweak parameters for thrust and weight, and though it takes more skill you can create entire models with GMax etc. and learn about structure to some degree. How many people bother to do that though? There's good reason for this. Last year's sim ends up on this year's junk pile and you have to start again or spend significant effort remodelling.
With a giood flight simulator you also learn about wind and weather, air traffic control, flying using instruments, navigation, programming flight computers etc. You're not going to learn that from flying an r/c plane. In fact even if you get a private pilot's license there are things you can learn about flying big iron that your PPL would never give you....and these days how many people can afford that PPL? You can spend about $600-$1000 and get a pretty damned good sim. (Of course you can get obsessed and spend thousands on flight sim software and hardware too, but you don't need to do so to learn about some pretty advanced stuff). Is it just like the real thing? No. Hell no. Don't believe marketing like "As real as it gets". Do you learn a lot. Yes. Hell yes.
You can still buy remote control planes. In fact I fly them. I also use a sim to practice so I don't crash planes often. (1 bad crash in over 2 years).
Simulators are a tool which have their place. I wouldn't want to go backwards and not have them around. Like all tools they have to be used the right way.
Arcade games are frivolous fun. That has it's place too but it's hardly going to be educational.
I didn't say it was unusual. I said it was the minority opinion. Unusual would be something like red on green which the study I linked to cited as the least legible.
You didn't say it was unusual??? Lying dishonest troll! You've repeatedly said it is valid to ridcule my point of view. I believe you brought implied basement dwelling into the argument. All you need for minority in the strict sense is majority - 1. You repeatedly stated that my argument was irrelevant because it was in the vast minority, which we've both proven to be untrue. Contrary to what you think being dishonest and slimy does not make you a good debater.
In order to show that your position is not a minority opinion, you must prove that the vast majority of the internet prefers white on black to black on white.
Where did you learn logic? From cornflakes packets? In order to show that it's not strict minority, I'd just have to show a majority of 1 more than the minority. I would not have to demonstrate vast majority at all. Furthermore I don't even need to do that. Since your argument is that my point of view is ridiculous, I just have to show that there are many reasonable people out there that share the same opinion. That's exactly what I've done, and exactly what you've dismissed.
Are you sure people praise you for your grasp of logic? Are you surprised that I'd call them morons, site unseen, given that you can't even follow a logical argument, display a complete lack of understanding of what minority vs majority means, and have decided that in order to prove my point of view is reasonable I have to prove it's the mainstream point of view?
As I've stated before, linking to a VIM color schemes page or referencing a discussion on Digg, Slashdot, or someone's personal site doesn't cut the mustard. Nor does anecdotal evidence.
Nor apparently does any evidence you've presented? Like the graph YOU gave that shows only a slight difference, perhaps less than 20% between people who prefer white on black vs black on white. In fact I think it's safe to say that no evidence I presented you with would sway you. You're not interested in evidence. You've made up your own mind that white text on a black screen is ridiculous no matter what anyone else says. The fact that logic doesn't sway you and that you're happy to disregard any evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived notion isn't my problem, it's yours.
The most accurate metric I'm aware of to draw an objective conclusion regarding this is to survey the majority color scheme used by most content on the internet, which is black on white. This implies that black on white is the majority preference for most people, which is supported by objective evidence, such as the color study I linked to.
First of all it was one study. Secondly it showed that lots like white on black. Look at the graphs you idiot troll. Thirdly majority opinion doesn't make it right, let alone make it right to ridicule those that don't agree with the majority. I'm tired of repeating the same points to someone who claims to be so intelligent and open minded.
As for the ridiculousness of the argument, feel free to dismiss that as my own subjective personal opinion.
Oh don't worry I have dismissed it from the argument. I didn't need your permission to do that. The fact remains that you're an insulting and arrogant little troll with social skills befitting a 4 year old pre-school bully, and only slightly more advanced argumentative skills.
I never said that your point of view was illegitimate. I said it was in the minority. You're the one who in fact implied that the majority of content on the internet has chosen an inferior color scheme by stating that black on white is a "problematic convention" which is the statement I've been waiting for you to substantiate this entire discussion.
Stop trying to misrepresent my argument. You know very well that's not what I said and it's all in black and white. You're not waiting for me to su
Don't try to avoid dark in sci-fi. A lot of the best sci fi is more about exploring the human psyche - the technology or remote physical setting is more a tool than the focus of the story.
My recommendation: Go for a short story collection. Anything by Asimov would be good. Or failing that try a collection that exposes the youngster to a wide variety of authors, but in short little bursts. Any story that isn't interesting can be skipped, or if read won't turn into a long drawn out drag that'll put the little tike off.
If short stories aren't what you want, try Cities in Flight James Blish.
I have insisted none of those things. I have done none of those things. It is perfectly legitimate to reject demonstrably invalid or irrelevant evidence, as I have done.
Repeating the same false statement over and over that I've refuted again and again does not suddenly make it true.
Rejecting and even ridiculing an argument is perfectly legitimate when the argument is invalid and/or ridiculous. I do not (deliberately) twist my opponents' arguments in order to refute them. As I've said before, if you clarify something you think I've not responded to directly, I will respond to it more directly.
Well make up your mind. Is my argument ridiculous or just a minority opinion. I've shown you it's neither. In fact the evidence YOU brought to the table show's it's not ridiculous, or even an unusual opinion. I can only conclude you're too stupid to understand that others may have a legitimate point of view that differs from yours. You can deny all you like. It's all in the discussion, recorded for posterity.
Oh yeah, logical consistency and debate are your forte. You've got me in stitches. You're so ridiculous remind me of an aquaintance from my teenage years (a friend of a friend) who'd bought some star trek technical reference, and insisted it was real and that soon we'd be travelling to the stars. Like him, you have trouble separating fiction from reality or following anything logically consistent.
Repeating the same false statement over and over that I've refuted again and again does not suddenly make it true
Really? I couldn't have guessed. Thanks for teaching me, master.
Pompous childishness is resorting to insults rather than refutations.
No, actually pompous childishness is insisting that you are a wonderful master debater who is xonstantly praised for their grasp of their laws of logic, while insisting the guy you're discussing things with is an idiot who can't follow a logical argument, throwing insults whilst chiding your opponent for hurling them back, coming up with straw men, misrepresenting the arguments you make, asking for references to be cited while rejecting any evidence actually presented to you, and then expecting your opponent to bother trying to refute anything knowing full well that any refutation he comes up with will be misinterpretted, twisted, rejected and ridiculed. You're nothing short of a nutter.
Attacking my quoting style does not prove my usage of ad hominem incorrect.
Nope, I did that quite seperately.
That said, my quoting style is designed to maximize brevity and demonstrate precisely what I am responding to (and ignoring).
Ohhh design huh? Does it come with a fabrication plant too? Do you have any idea how pompous and childish you sound?
So, it's not enough to lob ad hominems at me, but you must insult an entire community of people who you've not even had the slightest discourse with as well?
Yes sirreee Bob.
Anyway, I'm here to debate optimal color schemes, not trade insults with you.
Could've fooled me. You're the one who started the insults with allusions to me being some kind of basement dwelling social misfit.
Shall we get back to the debate?
Nup, that horse has bolted. Don't let the barn door hit your arse on the way out.
The Pirate Bay's case is more a matter of not being beaten down by epithets. If they call downloaders pirates, then the downloaders wear the name pirate with pride, and take the power away from the word, draining away negative connotations and whatnot.
It's the same method as homosexuals have used on 'fag' and black people on 'nigger'.
Yep, and it's about as effective too. I'll only let you counter argue if you're willing to prove you're right. You can either walk into the predominantly black club and start calling everyone a 'nigger', or into the gay club and start calling everyone a 'fag'. I'll wait outside (and call the ambulance if it looks like there's anything left of you to save).
Except for that pesky fact that my usage is correct.
Perhaps in your alternate reality, where you like to misquote and mistrepresent what is being said, while latching onto any phrase in isolation and out of context that supports your twisted point of view. You are the very definition of a troll.
My strict adherence to the rules of formal debate and logic has been the subject of much praise in public debates I've attended.
Slashdot Mirror
Robocopy is nice, but it's a command line utility and once you issue the command, you can't make changes. (Yes I know about /z recovery but that re-scans everything) Furthermore excluding specific files is a pain in the arse. To add insult to injury the latest version only works on Vista. What's needed is a graphical utility that lets you change your mind about what you're copying mid stream, lets you specify inclusions and exclusions easily.
Why is it that in 2008 file copy is such an ordeal? Windows explorer is a joke for large directories. One failure and it's good luck starting that file copy again friend! Oh you set off a file copy 12 hours ago. Pity there's a dialog up there stuck waiting for a response. When that's what you're competing with, it's easy to do better.
Have you taken a look at synctoy? So promising, but again issues with restart, and sadly issues handling large directories. A tree view would be nice instead of enabling and disabling different files in the preview.
With even something as simple as file copy so badly broken, is it any wonder that my phone and bluetooth software are buggy? Or that a restart is the best cure to 90% of problems?
For every white on black by default graphics app you can find, I can find two more which are black on white by default. Including the most widely used art app of them all: Photoshop.
For every stupid trollish argument you make I can counter with reason and logic.
I don't care how many apps you can find. I was only showing that it was reasonable and that there are people who've given the topic considerable thought and prefer less distracting WoB. I've done that no matter how many examples of interfaces with BoW you find.
Which, like most software markets, is a minority. If you could demonstrate that most software markets are demonstrating a majority trend toward white on black, you'd have a compelling argument.
Since I was never trying to demonstrate that most software markets have moved to white on black, you must be arguing with someone else. Seriously, quit with that same lame fucking straw man would you? My original argument was that on the whole we're so use to black on white that we're not considering that may not be the best solution. My second argument (or to be accurate my first counter-argument) was that it is not just basement dwelling misfits that experience less eye strain with WoB as you have repeatedly suggested or blatantly stated. Your harping on about majority vs minority does not address either of those arguments. If you do find someone stupid enough to suggest that the majority of interfaces in 2008 are WoB, please continue arguing with them. In the meantime stop putting such asinine words into my mouth. You pull crap like that repeatedly, constantly ignore me asking you to stop, and then wonder why I think you're a complete asshole, and stupid to boot?
That is correct. A recent, yet still minority trend in a single software market hardly constitutes evidence that white on black is the ideal choice for all content displayed on a computer screen.
It's amazing how logically inconsistent you are. Since you made the assertion, you state it as fact, and dismiss it out of hand. If I made such an assertion you'd start rabbiting on about how the onus is on me to prove it. I suppose that's your idea of being a good debater. I assure you it's not. Even your tone makes you come across as a complete smug prat. Recent minority trend indeed. We're talking about expensive top of the line photo editors used by most commercial graphic artists, not some piece of shareware crap that 3 geeks use. Single software market indeed. That single software market you speak of constitutes the graphic arts industry.
Pluto being a planet with similar objects not being a planet was not really scientific.
And a dwarf planet not being a planet is scientific?
Or the fact that the use of the 'The Sun' in the definition means extra solar planets don't count if the definition is taken literally.
These two books were texts I found particularly good through my course:
http://www.whfreeman.com/universe5e/ - Very good easy to read
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Astrophysics-Bradley-Carroll/dp/0805304029 - This one's heavier reading, but very comprehensive.
Even after finishing my Astronomy masters, I'm finding new insights in this book. It doesn't go into the heavy math though.
http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/
Sorry, my mistake. I missed that. You dismissed it rather than ignored it.
*yawn*
Children are not property, and cannot be bought and sold.
Sure they can be, if your freedom is absolute, you're free to treat others like property.
I shouldn't even need to explain the difference here. Surely you are capable of determining the difference between voluntarily entering into a contract, and murder. How you got modded "insightful" with harebrained, ridiculous examples like this is beyond me.
"I shouldn't even need to explain the difference here." translates to "I can't provide a good argument so I'll just say it should be obvious". You're just trolling.
People can become slaves. I take it you don't know much about the BDSM community, do you?
They're not actually slaves and the agreements you're entering into. It's true I know nothing first hand about the BDSM community but you appear to know even less. If A agrees to be B's slave, B can still be arrested and charged if B mutilates or murders A even with A's consent.
Familiarity is nice to avoid retraining, but you won't be attracting any new users/devs with ugly interfaces. Sounds shallow but its a fact of life. Aesthetics matter.
Do you work for a marketing department by any chance? I hear someone like you saying "Yes I know it's buggy, yes I know they'll need to be re-trained, but we need to release now since our grass roots (astroturf) campaign is ready to launch.
Ir doesn't work. You release a shiny new interface that's broken as hell, and you may get a few shallow idiot users onboard but the more intelligent ones will avoid it like the plague and tell everyone loud and clear how crap it is. I know a lot of users that would be happier with an ugly app that works than a glossy shiny one that is broken.
If the proprietary code in question ever becomes an issue, a viable open-sourced replacement will suddenly become more popular.
Then why don't we have viable 3d open source 3D drivers for graphics cards? I could waste my time naming lots of other examples.
Assuming equivalent enough functionality of course. If not, well then its time to get coding!
Time for who to get coding?
Your car should do everything you want it to. If you don't like the way it works, it's time to get engineering and manufacturing.
See how ridiculous that sounds? Asking an unskilled user of a motor vehicle to become an engineer and mechanic. That's not very different to telling end users to write their own code.
Slavery it is not. Remember that freedom isn't just about allowing users to do as you think they should - it's about the users being free to do whatever they want, including entering into contracts you might find onerous
No, freedom has never EVER been about being free to do whatever you want. I presume you're American? Funny that you should bring up slavery. The founding fathers of your country opposed slavery. Yet by your argument a person should be allowed to enter into a contract to become a slave if they wish. So why oppose it? We should all be free, right? If you don't like that example, if everyone is free, surely you should be free to sell your children into prostitution? Surely you should be free to murder someone if you feel like it, right?
Well it turns out that you should be free to do what you wish, WITHIN LIMITS. Those limits are determined by the law, and that should be driven by what effect your actions can have on society as a whole. If people were permitted to become slaves, this would have an impact on society, not just those involved in the contract.
Absolute freedom isn't a good idea - it isn't even logically self consistent. You end up impinging on the freedom of others. So you have to trade off freedoms.
I note you've nicely avoided response to why large companies writing photo editing software are creating black themes and making them the default.
The following of an idea has no correlation with its degree of ridiculousness.
What rubbish. If an idea isn't logically consistent within itself it's not possible to follow it.
Okay. Results
Results support that it's possible to be logically consistent and hold the position that I do, but as predicted you manage to dismiss out of hand, then....
Sorry. Argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't cut it. But if you believe there are some who will support your position, I'd enjoy reading their hopefully well researched papers on the subject.
Nor does Reductio ad absurdum. Nor do straw men. Things at which you are adept.
Do you even understand what Argumentum ad verecundiam means or are you pulling the latin phrases out of your arse via wikipedia? It is YOU that's making the appeal to authority by asking me to provide you with research papers while dismissing anecdotal evidence, articles, and discussion. See "Examples of appeals to authority" under Argumentum ad verecundiam in wikipedia. Your argument is classic Argumentum ad verecundiam since you refuse to acknowledge evidence unless it's from a research paper.
Secondly, do you even see the irony in, throughout the course of the discussion, singing your own praises, claiming to be a magnificent debater whose logical prowess impresses friends and strangers alike, then accusing me of Argumentum ad verecundiam?
You're a turkey. Honestly, every single time you try to sound clever you come up with something amusing because it's so much more idiotic than your last blunder. How you can think you're a magnificent logical debater is beyond me.
But if you believe there are some who will support your position, I'd enjoy reading their hopefully well researched papers on the subject.
Okay I'll go commission one for you right away. I bet you'd dismiss that too. It won't be by the right scientist, yeah?
Can't wait for your next inane response. Only wish it was more challenging to respond.
I agree with you. My favourite part was when the interviewer cut off the interviewee. Brilliant technique I thought. Why he has the makings of a slashdot troll.
It is to be interpreted as I further clarified in this post: "I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen. These people would easily suffer from eye strain. The consistency of the same color scheme on both paper and the computer screen is appreciated in such scenarios and these scenarios are very common."
Yeah, thanks for changing your story, I mean err clarifying. I can only respond to what you write at the time. I can't read your mind. I can only guess at your intent based on your attitude.
No, the statistical study I cited demonstrated that the people tested found white on black to be almost as readable as black on white, especially compared to the harsher combinations such as red on green.
What the fuck does red on green have to do with it you turkey? Another pathetic attempt at misdirection. Take a look at your own damn study and look at how close the numbers are from BoW vs WoB. I've never argued you should use weird harsh combinations and trying to even imply WoB is in the same category isn't supported by the very evidence you presented.
How is it relevant? What does that prove? It most certainly does not prove white on black is more readable than black on white.
It proves that your attempt to ridicule my choice is ridiculous in and of itself because a large number of people, not much less than those that prefer BoW like it. My argument was that we're preferring BoW because we're use to it from centuries of experience with paper.
Legitimately.
Illegitimately. You persist with the misdirection. You persist with the lies. You persist with the insults. You insist that my point of view is not valid, and you wonder why I think you're a piece of shit???
Can you clarify this? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here.
What I'm talking about is preference being affected by familiarity. If that doesn't make sense to you I don't have time for a comprehension lesson, or a lesson on statistical analysis.
I do, that's why I've been continuing to ignore your ad hominems.
Garbage. Anything I present you either don't understand (or pretend you don't) or you rubbish as invalid. You don't even want to take the evidence you present into account. Then you get pissed off that I won't present you with more evidence to shoot down illogically. I think you just need the last word, which is half the reason I'm having fun with you. I don't think you can let it go, even though if you're honest with yourself you've lost this argument. Not because I'm a world class debater but because your a weak one, and because I won't continue to feed your trolling by presenting more evidence. I've presented you with all the evidence a sane rational person needs to agree that I hold a legitimate and not uncommon point of view. You insist despite this that I don't. Your problem.
That idea is actually part of my argument. As I've stated above, consistency is very important. If you have to constantly switch from a paper medium to a computer screen (such as someone doing data entry), the constant contrast inversion can be extremely eye straining.
Consistency? You mean like your arguments and clarifications are consistent?
How many documents do you actually print out anyway? How many of them become unreadable if you print inverse? Then there's the ability to hit a print preview or even set preferences if that's what you prefer. Trouble is unless you're an advanced user you're not choosing the colour of your web pages or the background colour of most apps.
If you are so correct, please explain why newer version of photo editing software - major packages like Corel Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom - are shipping with a black theme by default. Explain why black firefox themes are so widely varied. Explain why they saw fit to include the ability to use a dark background in the latest versions of office. I'll tell you w
Then quote a passage I've written to the contrary.
Okay: "Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency."
How else is that to be interpreted other than that I hold an unusual or strange position?
If I wasted more time I'd find more. Stop wasting my time.
No, I stated that the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that white on black is superior to black on white since your position is in the minority.
A steaming pile of BS.
That is not my argument. That is a subjective conclusion I've drawn based on my argument.
You're the one who used the word ridiculous and said that using ridicule was valid.
Stop wasting my time. Stop saying it's not what you said. You're just outright lying, pure and simple.
The closeness is irrelevant. The legibility study proved with statistical significance that black on white is more legible than white on black
The closeness is very relevant if you're calling me ridiculous for holding that view.
The study only proved a slight preference of black on white over white on black. It didn't and couldn't take into account factors such as what a user is accustomed to etc. What other assumptions were made? What other biases could be avoided.
. What is relevant is the fact that this study proves black on white is more legible which explains why it is the majority preference for content on the internet.
It most certainly did not prove that. I could probably find several studies that counter. Will I do that for someone that behaves like you do? Nup.
Present valid contrary evidence that disproves my "pre-conceived notion" that black on white is more legible than white on black and I'll be more than happy to concede the point.
Where you get to decide what is and isn't valid? Yeah there's a worthwhile hobby and a good use of my time. I've presented evidence. You've dismissed it. You've lied, you've manipulated and you've ridiculed. I'm suppose to waste time trying to convince you? Idiot.
Sure it does. The correct choice is the color scheme most people find the most legible.
Again BS. What would people choose if they had use to get something they weren't already use to? What would people choose if the text was customised to be readable as white on black?
You can't simply define your own criteria for success and then shove it down my throat you troll.
You said "we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic." This implies that black on white text is a "problematic convention" and that your stated preference of white on black is superior. If that's what you believe, you must substantiate it. That's what I've been waiting for.
Fuck off. Who the fuck are you? Who says I have to do anything? Who made you my boss? What you're saying is that because I've publicly stated an opinion on an internet forum I somehow owe you something. I owe you nothing and I don't have to substantiate anything to an insulting deceitful troll. Must be fun going around thinking the world owes you something. Fits in well with the rest of your pompous arrogant rant. You need help buddy.
Since it is obvious that continuing to deny these repeated baseless accusations will serve only to waste my time, I'll instead respond with this: I'm sorry you feel that way, but I doubt posterity will agree with your assessment of my conduct as that's neither what actually happened nor my intent.
Stick it up your posterity. What you do or don't doubt doesn't interest me. I've seen you flip flop time and time again on what you were arguing. I've seen you deny positions you've held. I've seen you accuse me of a lack of decorum when you were the first to display this. I'm sure you don't see it that way because you're incapable of following a logical train of thought but I'm not your educator and it's not my problem.
Perhaps if you weren't so emotionally attach
Imagine your commercial airliner whipping out a big camera to look at its underside to see if it is safe to land. That's what the shuttle does. It's a joke!
Be fair. Imagine your commercial airliner reaching Mach 25, the wings reaching 1650 C, and landing without powered thrust.
Many very intelligent people have worked on the tile problem. Using a camera to double check nothing has fallen off (because dispite their efforts material still does) is a good move despite the ridicule.
The US has had less than one fatal accident per decade since the space program started; the Apollo fire and the two shuttle disasters. I'd say their safety record is pretty good.
Exploration is dangerous. 20 or so people out of how many? A few hundred? That's not great actually. Human beings have to be prepared to accept those risks if they wish to explore. That's the price of the (at least potential) benefits you get. If you don't want to do it, stay home.
People put themselves in harms way all of the time to pursue their ambitions regardless of whether or not it helps humanity. If we can have mountain climbers, and race car drivers, who do it soley for the glory, arguing that we shouldn't have astronauts on the basis of safety is nuts.
Nowadays you want to fly a plane? You load up Flight Simulator. While this might teach you the controls, it won't teach you squat about centers of gravity, airfoils, structures, or thrust.
You're talking about an arcade flight simulator (or a good flight simulator set to arcade mode). Arcade flight sims are not much different to arcade shooters or pac-man. Of course you're not going to build skill.
MS flight simulator 2004 lets you model C.O.G., you can tweak parameters for thrust and weight, and though it takes more skill you can create entire models with GMax etc. and learn about structure to some degree. How many people bother to do that though? There's good reason for this. Last year's sim ends up on this year's junk pile and you have to start again or spend significant effort remodelling.
With a giood flight simulator you also learn about wind and weather, air traffic control, flying using instruments, navigation, programming flight computers etc. You're not going to learn that from flying an r/c plane. In fact even if you get a private pilot's license there are things you can learn about flying big iron that your PPL would never give you....and these days how many people can afford that PPL? You can spend about $600-$1000 and get a pretty damned good sim. (Of course you can get obsessed and spend thousands on flight sim software and hardware too, but you don't need to do so to learn about some pretty advanced stuff). Is it just like the real thing? No. Hell no. Don't believe marketing like "As real as it gets". Do you learn a lot. Yes. Hell yes.
You can still buy remote control planes. In fact I fly them. I also use a sim to practice so I don't crash planes often. (1 bad crash in over 2 years).
Simulators are a tool which have their place. I wouldn't want to go backwards and not have them around. Like all tools they have to be used the right way.
Arcade games are frivolous fun. That has it's place too but it's hardly going to be educational.
I didn't say it was unusual. I said it was the minority opinion. Unusual would be something like red on green which the study I linked to cited as the least legible.
You didn't say it was unusual??? Lying dishonest troll! You've repeatedly said it is valid to ridcule my point of view. I believe you brought implied basement dwelling into the argument. All you need for minority in the strict sense is majority - 1. You repeatedly stated that my argument was irrelevant because it was in the vast minority, which we've both proven to be untrue. Contrary to what you think being dishonest and slimy does not make you a good debater.
In order to show that your position is not a minority opinion, you must prove that the vast majority of the internet prefers white on black to black on white.
Where did you learn logic? From cornflakes packets? In order to show that it's not strict minority, I'd just have to show a majority of 1 more than the minority. I would not have to demonstrate vast majority at all. Furthermore I don't even need to do that. Since your argument is that my point of view is ridiculous, I just have to show that there are many reasonable people out there that share the same opinion. That's exactly what I've done, and exactly what you've dismissed.
Are you sure people praise you for your grasp of logic? Are you surprised that I'd call them morons, site unseen, given that you can't even follow a logical argument, display a complete lack of understanding of what minority vs majority means, and have decided that in order to prove my point of view is reasonable I have to prove it's the mainstream point of view?
As I've stated before, linking to a VIM color schemes page or referencing a discussion on Digg, Slashdot, or someone's personal site doesn't cut the mustard. Nor does anecdotal evidence.
Nor apparently does any evidence you've presented? Like the graph YOU gave that shows only a slight difference, perhaps less than 20% between people who prefer white on black vs black on white. In fact I think it's safe to say that no evidence I presented you with would sway you. You're not interested in evidence. You've made up your own mind that white text on a black screen is ridiculous no matter what anyone else says. The fact that logic doesn't sway you and that you're happy to disregard any evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived notion isn't my problem, it's yours.
The most accurate metric I'm aware of to draw an objective conclusion regarding this is to survey the majority color scheme used by most content on the internet, which is black on white. This implies that black on white is the majority preference for most people, which is supported by objective evidence, such as the color study I linked to.
First of all it was one study. Secondly it showed that lots like white on black. Look at the graphs you idiot troll. Thirdly majority opinion doesn't make it right, let alone make it right to ridicule those that don't agree with the majority. I'm tired of repeating the same points to someone who claims to be so intelligent and open minded.
As for the ridiculousness of the argument, feel free to dismiss that as my own subjective personal opinion.
Oh don't worry I have dismissed it from the argument. I didn't need your permission to do that. The fact remains that you're an insulting and arrogant little troll with social skills befitting a 4 year old pre-school bully, and only slightly more advanced argumentative skills.
I never said that your point of view was illegitimate. I said it was in the minority. You're the one who in fact implied that the majority of content on the internet has chosen an inferior color scheme by stating that black on white is a "problematic convention" which is the statement I've been waiting for you to substantiate this entire discussion.
Stop trying to misrepresent my argument. You know very well that's not what I said and it's all in black and white. You're not waiting for me to su
Don't try to avoid dark in sci-fi. A lot of the best sci fi is more about exploring the human psyche - the technology or remote physical setting is more a tool than the focus of the story.
My recommendation: Go for a short story collection. Anything by Asimov would be good. Or failing that try a collection that exposes the youngster to a wide variety of authors, but in short little bursts. Any story that isn't interesting can be skipped, or if read won't turn into a long drawn out drag that'll put the little tike off.
If short stories aren't what you want, try Cities in Flight James Blish.
I have insisted none of those things.
I have done none of those things.
It is perfectly legitimate to reject demonstrably invalid or irrelevant evidence, as I have done.
Repeating the same false statement over and over that I've refuted again and again does not suddenly make it true.
Rejecting and even ridiculing an argument is perfectly legitimate when the argument is invalid and/or ridiculous. I do not (deliberately) twist my opponents' arguments in order to refute them. As I've said before, if you clarify something you think I've not responded to directly, I will respond to it more directly.
Well make up your mind. Is my argument ridiculous or just a minority opinion. I've shown you it's neither. In fact the evidence YOU brought to the table show's it's not ridiculous, or even an unusual opinion. I can only conclude you're too stupid to understand that others may have a legitimate point of view that differs from yours. You can deny all you like. It's all in the discussion, recorded for posterity.
Oh yeah, logical consistency and debate are your forte. You've got me in stitches. You're so ridiculous remind me of an aquaintance from my teenage years (a friend of a friend) who'd bought some star trek technical reference, and insisted it was real and that soon we'd be travelling to the stars. Like him, you have trouble separating fiction from reality or following anything logically consistent.
You're just a foolish troll.
Repeating the same false statement over and over that I've refuted again and again does not suddenly make it true
Really? I couldn't have guessed. Thanks for teaching me, master.
Pompous childishness is resorting to insults rather than refutations.
No, actually pompous childishness is insisting that you are a wonderful master debater who is xonstantly praised for their grasp of their laws of logic, while insisting the guy you're discussing things with is an idiot who can't follow a logical argument, throwing insults whilst chiding your opponent for hurling them back, coming up with straw men, misrepresenting the arguments you make, asking for references to be cited while rejecting any evidence actually presented to you, and then expecting your opponent to bother trying to refute anything knowing full well that any refutation he comes up with will be misinterpretted, twisted, rejected and ridiculed. You're nothing short of a nutter.
This is a red herring.
Actually I prefer rainbow coloured.
Attacking my quoting style does not prove my usage of ad hominem incorrect.
Nope, I did that quite seperately.
That said, my quoting style is designed to maximize brevity and demonstrate precisely what I am responding to (and ignoring).
Ohhh design huh? Does it come with a fabrication plant too? Do you have any idea how pompous and childish you sound?
So, it's not enough to lob ad hominems at me, but you must insult an entire community of people who you've not even had the slightest discourse with as well?
Yes sirreee Bob.
Anyway, I'm here to debate optimal color schemes, not trade insults with you.
Could've fooled me. You're the one who started the insults with allusions to me being some kind of basement dwelling social misfit.
Shall we get back to the debate?
Nup, that horse has bolted. Don't let the barn door hit your arse on the way out.
The Pirate Bay's case is more a matter of not being beaten down by epithets. If they call downloaders pirates, then the downloaders wear the name pirate with pride, and take the power away from the word, draining away negative connotations and whatnot.
It's the same method as homosexuals have used on 'fag' and black people on 'nigger'.
Yep, and it's about as effective too. I'll only let you counter argue if you're willing to prove you're right. You can either walk into the predominantly black club and start calling everyone a 'nigger', or into the gay club and start calling everyone a 'fag'. I'll wait outside (and call the ambulance if it looks like there's anything left of you to save).
Except for that pesky fact that my usage is correct.
Perhaps in your alternate reality, where you like to misquote and mistrepresent what is being said, while latching onto any phrase in isolation and out of context that supports your twisted point of view. You are the very definition of a troll.
My strict adherence to the rules of formal debate and logic has been the subject of much praise in public debates I've attended.
Yup. Morons attract morons.