For me there are several issues that are all new suckiness when it comes to Vista.
The old and repeated suckiness: 1) Once again functionality traded for silly bling that gets in your way but hopes to capture the "oh pretty as a Mac" segment of the market 2) Increasingly outrageous prices unless bought as DRM 3) Bugs, bugs and more buts (the one that bit me hardest was Vista's Complete PC backup not working. In fact not working is an understatement. It proceeded to tell me on of my backup files was corrupt only after deleting existing partitions. The files were not corrupt as I was able to recover everything I attempted to using Microsoft Virtual server and mounting the VHDs).
The new suckiness: 1) New Draconian DRM. Everything from restricting HD playback to disabling loopback in audio drivers. 2) Backwards compatibility badly broken for some things that shouldn't be (ie aren't OS tools etc) 3) How many different versions of Vista are there again? 4) Increasingly bloated, and the 32-bit version which is limited to 4Gb (and not all of that usable) this is inexcusable. The 64 version sacrifies even more 32-bit functionality and compatiblity.
Okay, now it's time to cue the million responses calling me a Microsoft shill. Suggested topics: "There really was no reason to upgrade from 2k to XP, I still use 2k just fine," "Vista is beyond repair because of DRM," and "Vista is way more broken than Leopard, how dare you rip on OS X."
The first and second are true I'm afraid. I'd love to take advantage of the couple of things that I do find useful in Vista (like the new robocopy that appears to have been intentionally disabled for prior versions of the OS) but not when I have the OS second guessing whether I have a license to run what I wish to. No amount of maturing in the OS is going to fix this issue for me since the crippling is intentional. It's a tradeoff I have to live with if I want Vista....which is why I don't.
I have no love of OS X nor do I use it so I can't comment on the third.
Historically it has certainly proven to be. Not everyone on this planet is educated, has enough wealth that prostitution isn't tempting, or even is in a position to say no if they wish to. You're not talking about the abstinence of a few wealthy individuals but of everyone on the planet infected with an STD.
That's just one very classic example. There is plenty of software out there that can kill in large groups. Take the software flight control systems for modern jet airliners.
I grant you that control systems are just one kind of software. Financial systems however can destabilize entire nations if they fail and that can lead indirectly to loss of life in a variety of ways. Accounting for billions of dollars isn't something you take lightly.
It is a fact that you have been modded troll repeatedly in this discussion
It is also a fact that you've been modded troll repeatedly in this discussion. A fact that it's convenient for you to ignore. It's also a fact that a person choosing what they say to carefully ensure that they do not get modded down is referred to as a slashdot 'Karma whore'.
Please point to things I have written in this discussion that try to provoke an emotional respons with you.
I'm sick and tired of you asking me to repeat previous dialog as proof that it occurred. There's plenty there.
No, I give evidence, you are simply stating things without backing them up.
What evidence have you given exactly? And what have I said without backing it up? You're just lying, stating this as fact when it isn't true. You've been careful to ignore or dismiss every piece of evidence I've presented.
o know slashdot better than you. I asked where I said that. You did not come up with a quote, despite me clearly asking for such a quote
Dude you gave me a condescending lecture on an article can't actually be moderated as if I were new here. Now you're blaming me for not finding the quote where you did this? You're wondering why I'd call you names? Seriously, that's got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've seen here.
Yes, with incidental evidence. Nice if you happen to run that game. That however still leaves it a bad article.
I don't care what you think of the article. You're entitled to that opinion. What you're not entitled to is your continual insistence that it doesn't belong here and your repeated bashing of me for stating that it is inappropriate for you to decide such things on behalf of the entire community.
That can indeed be called a 'positive discussion'. But that does not make the article correct.
Very good. You ALMOST conceded that point graciously but then had to ruin it with the rest of your rhetoric. You stated that you had seen no positive discussion coming from the article. You asked me to show you where. I did.
I did not decide on nor call for a flamefest. I simply stated that TFA was calling for a flamefest. That is not the same thing. Stating that something is flamebait (and providing evidence to back up such claim) is NOT flamebait in itself. Why do you keep getting that wrong?
Funny that you were more than willing to participate in a flamefest. What you originally said was that the article should be 'moderated flamebait'. While an article can't be modded as we both know, calling for something to be modded down implies calling for it's visibility to be reduced. Your attitude and approach was not to say that the article wasn't very scientific and was flawed it was to call for a reduction in visibility and THAT is what I took exception to since I found it interesting despite its flaws.
This is typical of your style of discussion. I provide examples and evidence over and over again to back up my claims.
You're the last person I'll from whom I'll take notes on how to conduct a discussion. This is typical of your hypocrisy.
You do no such thing. You simply state that you do. On the other hand when I do prove that something you've said is wrong, you either ignore or quickly concede the point and follow with a "but..." where you restate something that isn't related. In other words you ignore or misdirect after I do provide evidence while repeatedly calling for me to provide more evidence in an attempt to bog me down. I've said nothing here that the discussion doesn't bear out or that can't be proven (except perhaps regarding moderation - since I haven't got access to records of who moderated what and relationships I can only have my strong suspicions here). At the same time I have disproved statements you've made whereas you've done no such thing for me.
You are free to believe what you want. But since the combined mods on my first 3 postings in this thread are +12 in tot
"In no part of this discussion have I tried to get an emotional response out of you. You did resort to name calling ('moron', 'asshole') and you have been moderated 'troll' on a lot of your comments
That's either a blatant and flat out lie or you have the charm and personality of arsenic. Each post continues to present a false air of superiority and twists the truth as much as is possible while refusing to concede a single point. If I show something to be true your technique is simply to deny that I showed it or to ignore it and focus on new attacks by yourself that are no different to what you complain that I'm doing.
As a professional software developer I have a professional interest in the performance of OS-es, even when it comes to gaming.
I happen to be a sofware developer myself as if that were the topic. As for your interest in performance "even when it comes to gaming" thank you for stooping so low your royal magesty. Seriously where the fuck do you get off with the high and mighty bullshit. If games aren't important to you skip the article altogether instead of putting down the interests of those who recognise the value of a game even as an adult.
If apps written for A run better on B, it is indeed news. The article however fails miserably in showing evidence for such a claim.
Well that's news to me. In at least one of the 5 cases he presented clear evidence. Others commenting later on presented more. You were too busy calling for the article to be thrown off slashdot to notice. There was a post that went through each of the games in detail and analysed whether he'd shown one system to be better than the other. No I won't dig it out for you. It is there and I'm not lying so if you want to find it you will.
There were plenty of positive comments on the article. You said you'd seen none. Here are 3. If you want more it's YOUR job to find them since YOU are the one who's been proven wrong.
How will emulators etc. deal with Vista? (Score:4, Interesting) "Here is what I wonder: How will the suites that provide emulation and Windows-compatible API hosts deal with Vista? "...
by Seven001 (750590) Alter Relationship on 09:08 PM -- Saturday February 02 2008 (#22271614) "On my computer, WoW runs better under Wine in Linux than on Windows XP. Faster load times and such. Not saying that's the case for everyone, but I have heard quite a few others say the same."
"WoW on Linux (Score:5, Interesting" I too play WoW on Linux - Without cedega that is. There is an endless discussion on the internal cedage forums about it - but the bottom line is: Sometimes it's better to use an up-to-date Wine with OpenGL instead.
If that's not "positive discussion" based on the article, I'm a monkey. If not for the likes of you deciding a flame fest and calls for moderation/censorship there'd be lots more. A starting point for the discussion is where the author fails in his methology and THAT ALONE would make this article worthy of discussion.
Also several people modded my original response to you positively. Several modded you down as well I might add. However you harp on what my posts have been modded *sarcasm* - clearly this is another attempt of honest and rational discussion from you.
Your original post sank quite quickly which is why I believe you've continued with your ridiculous childish demand. How dare anyone argue against your not so humble self.
That you do not believe me does not give you the right to call me 'dishonest'; you need evidence to back up that claim.
See above. Plenty of statements you have made are incorrect and/or misleading, either wilfully or through sheer incompetence.
you have accused me of abusing the moderation system. That to me is a severe accusation. So severe that you should either back it up by providing clear proof or retract
I don't believe or accept your claim that you wouldn't have the article removed and weren't calling for its removal. I do accept that you don't have the power to do so. However its just about self evident that if you're calling for an article to be made less visible that and you're saying it doesn't belong here, you would have it removed. That is the only reasonable and rational conclusion. Your rhetoric and weasel words don't don't change that. Parroting the words "don't change that" and twisting the truth doesn't either - you just come across as a child.
You claim to understand slashdot better than I but this is demonstrably false.
Slashdot's credibility as a geek site depends partly on the uncorrupted workings of the mod system
There are certainly more postings like mine, even calling the article trash. Almost all are modded up quite clearly. And since I have yet to read a posting (apart from your postings) that calls TFA newsworthy
Funny how you don't see things when you shut your eyes, isn't it? Shall I waste my time linking to all the comments where posters did find the article interesting and have commented positively?
It is no excuse that others have done so before, and those that have done so have done so for different articles in different contexts.
If you think you have any inkling of the meaning of the scientific method, or of integrity, think again. You've posted garbage that's easily disproven. Good scientists don't push their own agenda ignoring the facts. Scientists go out of their way to find the truth. Invoking scientific method in the way you have is dishonest and ignoble.
You're a troll not an upholder of science and truth. Yes I'm calling you a troll again. It's well deserved. You wouldn't let a little thing like the truth or honesty get in the way of your argument.
Religion isn't the problem, blowing shit out of proportion is. Atheists can be just as bad as Christians or Muslims or Scientologists, they are after all - people.
Atheism is about believing that there is no God. When Atheism is elevated to a religion - "either believe that there is no God or die" - then it can be just as bad. Not many Atheists would do that as usually if you believe in reason and common sense instead of a God you're willing to listen to reason and can be swayed by logical argument. Most reasonable people would say we can't construct a society on forcing people to believe any one thing, because if you do you end up with oppression and bloodshed. Instead you have to convince them (which can be extremely difficult, but the alternatives are extremism and bloodshed. Now I'm not saying there aren't Aethists around that believe they should force their views on others - just that most can be swayed by reason.
In contrast "religious" people usually believe in things that aren't based on what can be proven and are immune to logical argument because if their religion says something is so in their holy book they feel they must "believe" or "have faith". You have no opportunity of swaying such a point of view with logical argument. The best you can hope for is some religious people will contend that their religious nonsense is a metaphor and shouldn't be taken literally.
No, it would for instance be newsworthy if the author followed a scientifically sound method; the author clearly did not.....because all the articles posted here follow the scientific method rigorously? Gimme a break.
No, i simply state the article uses a bad methodology and is therefor not newsworthy. You keep coming up with terms like 'censorship' and now 'banished'.
You called for the article to be modded -1:Flamebait. That usually means that people who only view things posted at 1 or above (usually higher) will not see it. You'd make that choice for everyone else. You repeatedly state that the article is not fit to be included on/. Clearly if you'd had the power to remove it you would have and that is what you've called for - what the fuck did you think mod it flamebait means exactly?? - and then you wonder why I use terms like 'censorship' and 'banished'. Are you thick? Do you think if you repeat yourself enough it will alter reality bozo? The distinction you make between a request for censorship and a request to moderate flamebait are flimsier and more logically flawed than anything in the article. You're simply being dishonest.
the fact that the article is not newsworthy IMNSHO.
Yes, you don't think it's newsworthy. Yes, you're not so humble (I'd go as far as pretentious with dellusions of grandeur). That doesn't mean that it's not worthy and that it doesn't belong on slashdot. You can believe or opine whatever you like. Think the earth is flat for all I care.
You know what - debating this with you point by point is a complete waste of my time so I'm going to stop. You can't have a rational argument with someone who refuses to acknowledge a rational point and tries to twist it dishonestly. You're clearly an asshole who believes that if YOU believe something doesn't belong here, it doesn't, and other opinions be damned. Nothing I'm likely to say will change that. It's also quite clear that you are manipulating the moderation somehow. The messages for which I'm being modded troll are way too deep in the discussion and start out modded too low to be receiving enough attention to be modded down a day after the article was posted.
So fuck you and the not so humble horse you rode in on. I'm glad I got to read the article and I'm glad it was posted here despite having to deal with the kind of dishonest fool with delusions of superiority that you are.
Actually, that's about as far from defining feminism as it gets. It's not about bashing the one or the other. It's about equal appreciation of both genders. When will you guys finally understand that?
Perhaps when you stop labeling yourself with a term that is itself sexist and divisive? If your idea of feminism is being pro-equality, find a label that doesn't associate you with man-hating extremists.
I have a wife. I have a mother. (One day I may have a daughter). I don't see them as second class citizens, or toys for men, or servants of men. I do care about their welfare including their right to self-determination and right to be treated equally in the work place. I also respect the differences between the genders (and no this doesn't mean I try to force gender roles on women). I would never EVER refer to myself as a feminist.
I'm sorry to hear your marriage is so lousy. That doesn't mean they all are. Clearly it has made you bitter. I'd suggest you talk to her about how unhappy you are, and if you still can't resolve it consider leaving despite the cost. Life's too short to be miserable.
Your life sounds rather poisonous and it sounds like you're headed for an early grave if you keep going just as you are simply because you feel trapped.
But then, ask yourself often people marry their friends?
I can't give you percentages. I can only tell you that the woman I married is most certainly and literally my best friend. It was a definite pre-requisit to me proposing. I can't understand why someone would marry anyone they didn't consider a friend, and I don't know what your reasons were.
Truthfully I've only been married for less than 6 months (living with her for almost 4 years though). Children are something I'm about to find out about first hand. So I'll be walking the walk soon enoguh.
What's depressing is that this is modded "insightful" on/. so I'm guessing there are a lot more bitter men here.
Regardless, your life isn't over till you're dead. Make something of it.
It may be of interest to you (maybe because you play the exact 5 games or because of some other reason), but that does not make it newsworthy *for slashdot*.
Ah because that would be the only reason it would be newsworthy... With your limited imagination you can't think of another therefore the article should be banished from/. I don't play any of those games. but you already had guessed that, hadn't you. I'm quite justified in calling you a troll - you're clearly trolling here. Please look up "Straw man".
If I know 5 people with red hair, and they all have an IQ far above (or far below) the average IQ, and I write an article about that claiming 'Gene That Causes Red Hair Makes People Dumber' (or 'Smarter'), then that article is not newsworthy because its claim is based on faulty logic.
A stupid analogy from a weak mind, to say the least, combined with another straw man. The only similarity to the story posted is the small sample size, which I think is the point you're trying to harp on. However the last time I checked, genetics wasn't meant to be tied to hair colour whereas backward compatibility is very much tied to how an operating system is engineered. Also the last time I checked there weren't social issues (racial supremacy) tied to how an operating system is engineered. If only you'd chosen blonde hair and blue eyes instead of red hair I might have been able to claim Godwin (even though I'm no fan of Godwin's law).
Please look up straw man.
>I>And about censorship: you keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means. If someone stands up in a movie theater and starts giving everybody his opinion about the movie, he is told to shut up or go away. That is not censorship. Slashdot is not the right place for that article, since its reasoning is deeply flawed
Yet another straw man, and yet another bad analogy.
First of all you have no right to decide what goes on/. - you're not an editor.
Secondly, a person speaking at a movie theatre can't be ignored simply by moving on to the next article. They can cause a paying audience to miss a crucial part of the movie. In contrast if you don't like the article it shouldn't burden you too much to move on as soon as you realize the author is talking about just 5 games. There are other stories posted that you can read.
Thirdly, regardless of any flawed reasoning this person has brought to light something of interest to/. users who may want to upgrade. I'm sorry his sample size and choices don't meet your standards of professional journalism, but if you look at the other stuff that gets posted here professional journalism is not what/. is about.
Fourth, you seem to be simultaneously saying that the article should not have been allowed on to slashdot while claiming you're not censoring it. Even if you're technically correct (and I don't concede that point at all) it's clear that you'd rather the article didn't exist because it doesn't meet your personal standards, so you're being quite dishonest.
And once again; I am not trying to insult you.
Funny. You're doing an excellent job of belittling me and defending your actions no matter what they are.
The "Please don't (..)" was to express disappointment because I got the impression you purpously refused to understand me.
Oh I understood you and I suspect you knew I was launching your own consdescending tripe back at you.
I do not set people up to do things for me. I am perfectly capable of saying what I want to say myself; I need no ACs to make my point.
What else am I to conclude with the number of AC's coming to your defense. Also if you look at my original comment's moderation at least 3 people thought it was interesting or insightful before it was torpedoed.
I thought that would be obvious, it seems it is not
What's obvious is that you feel justified in calling for the
FUD is an overused term. I didn't say that I agree with the author or found it to be highly scientific and accurate. On the other hand I don't believe he's lying about what he's reported, even if his conclusion from such a small sample size is not sound. I found the article interesting and so did others. If you don't want to read it, by all means skip it. If you do and decide it doesn't have merit by all means point out the flaws. However don't call for or support it's censorship on this board, then acuse someone who objects to that of trolling.
fairly reasonably points ...and... only the way that the OP is arguing.
The only thing that the OP has argued is that the article should be suppressed, preventing any further discussion.
Also, it's "pray", not "prey".
Actually it's spelt "anal retentive grammar nazi poser". When I want an English lesson I'll go hire a teacher you rude little man.
This isn't a formal business letter, it's a message board, on which you'll find plenty of typos, spelling mistakes, and errors in grammar. These discussions occur at all hours of the day and night and are casual. Small errors rarely take away from the argument and are usually only pointed out by petty gits who wish to offer these errors as some kind of proof that they're superior (usually when they have nothing better to say).
When did I say that?
When did you tell me to shut up? Lets see you're accusing me of showing no interest in debating the content of the article, but you object to me telling someone not to call for it to be suppressed (aka "modded flamebait"). In other words you don't want to hear that I don't like someone asking for it to be suppressed. What is there to not understand here exactly?
Which is sadly not very much, except for name calling.
Name calling? Well if you're going to accuse me of it, might as well do the crime. MORON!
My point was that the article is newsworthy. When you call for it to be "modded flamebait" and tell me that it's "not newsworthy" you're saying it doesn't belong on slashdot and are calling for its censorship here. There is no other interpretation, and denying it makes no sense. To throw one of your own supposedly "civilized" insults back at you "Please don't tell me that did not get that?"
By the way getting other people to post as anonymous and or mod things flamebait is incredibly immature. You must be one prize to deal with in person. Thankfully I am unlikely to ever have that pleasure.
I just read your whole little geeky flame war, and I didn't see where he told you to shut up or was rude at any point. He did nothing but debate beautifully with you, and you could do nothing but attack him for it
Posting "anonymously" in response to criticism or getting a friend to do it is childish.
There was nothing beautiful about it. The opening poster wanted the article "modded flamebait" ie. censored and I objected to that.
"Its you screaming 'TROOOOOOLL' at fairly reasonably points and then crying when people call you a troll because you've shown little to no interest in debating the content of the article, only the way that the OP is arguing."
The opening poster was interested in debating the content of the article???? That's news to me. The opening poster wanted it censored as flamebait, which is what I objected to. Get a clue.
"the guy" suggested that an entire article didn't belong on/. and should be modded flamebait and "the other guy" pointed out that this was news to geeks and shouldn't be censored. You may wish to consider trying not to sound like a bubblegum chewing teenager when you summarize a discussion. At least use "one poster" and "another poster" instead of "the guy" and "the other guy".
That's fine. I only had one point to make: that the article is worth a read and doesn't deserve to be censored as flamebait.
Am I trolling? No more than he is suggesting he doesn't understand why he's being offensive trying to censor something that would genuinely be interesting to others.
Now prey tell what was YOUR point since you think the "serious discussion" was "lost" "2 posts back"?
You both just need to learn to skip over what you don't want to read instead of being so rude as to tell people to shut up.
But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.
Such changes: 1. Take time. Generations, literally. A sub-culture already exists but it's not prevalent. 2. aren't necessary a good thing just because they're possible.
The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.
Fortunately there are those of us that can, but to be honest I don't feel like a long drawn out discussion about it.
Please stick to argumentation and stop picking on words.
Oh I'm sorry. Please do tell me how to have an argument without responding to your words.
Keep in mind you have NOT given any valid argument why my response should be modded flamebait, so I cannot reach any other conclusion than that you incorrectly accused me of something because you did not 'appreciate' what I said. I find that a bit sad.
I'm sorry but doing that requires words, and you've asked me not to do that.
Bottom line: You have no right whatsoever to shout someone else down then complain when someone does the same back to you. I stand by what I said. Your comment is just as likely to cause angry responses as the article since you're suggesting that the article isn't fit to be posted and should be censored. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn't mean you're trolling any less.
From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship. (I could put this much more crudely but I won't). Without these urges our species wouldn't exist. You can't suddenly replace that in a generation. If you had many generations that could survive just as well (ie elliminate high birth defects etc) perhaps you'd see human sex drive die off. I like sex, so let's hope not.
From a social and evolutionary point of view, while men and women can replace each other for most things it is still true that the male tends to be physically bigger and buliker, and prefer science and math while women tend to be smaller and have more interests in social bonds, fashion and nest-making. We'd need to change both society and biology to change that. (Note that I'm not saying a man can't be a splendid nest-maker or that a woman can't do heavy work, or even that this should be discouraged - nothing sexier than a woman with a brain, or one that can kick arse - I'm just stating what the trend is currently and that it takes time to change such trends.)
So while a few scornful women may wish to bomb men out of existence but we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Let's all be friends, instead.
Please elaborate why my posting should be modded 'flamebait', for I fail to see a valid reason.
YOU are the one that called for the article to be modded flamebait in the first place. Now you're complaining about someone else doing the same to you. Pot. Kettle. Black.
The article however fails miserably in showing evidence for such a claim.
So the summary was bad. Why does that make the whole thing flamebait?
I fail to see how my post is controversial; I also fail to see any intention of provoking an emotional response.
Your failures aren't my problem. If you can't see why asking to mod/censor an article that might be of interest to others might provoke an emotional response, I don't see how I can help you. If new versions of windows are less compatible with even some software than Linux emulating an old version that is of interest to me, and I don't appreciate people like yourself trying to shout down the article.
How about we mod you -1:Flamebait instead? At least the author admits the article is "a bit biased".
On the other hand you're saying it ISN'T news for nerds that games built to run on a prior version of Windows don't work in new one but do work on a totally different operating system?
Let me guess. You don't think it's news that newer versions of Office won't open old word documents but Open Office will.
Don't get me wrong, the choice of games (besides perhaps Civ 4) is questionable, but make no mistake YOU are the one trolling. The author of the blog article has a point.
Slashdot Mirror
For me there are several issues that are all new suckiness when it comes to Vista.
The old and repeated suckiness:
1) Once again functionality traded for silly bling that gets in your way but hopes to capture the "oh pretty as a Mac" segment of the market
2) Increasingly outrageous prices unless bought as DRM
3) Bugs, bugs and more buts (the one that bit me hardest was Vista's Complete PC backup not working. In fact not working is an understatement. It proceeded to tell me on of my backup files was corrupt only after deleting existing partitions. The files were not corrupt as I was able to recover everything I attempted to using Microsoft Virtual server and mounting the VHDs).
The new suckiness:
1) New Draconian DRM. Everything from restricting HD playback to disabling loopback in audio drivers.
2) Backwards compatibility badly broken for some things that shouldn't be (ie aren't OS tools etc)
3) How many different versions of Vista are there again?
4) Increasingly bloated, and the 32-bit version which is limited to 4Gb (and not all of that usable) this is inexcusable. The 64 version sacrifies even more 32-bit functionality and compatiblity.
Okay, now it's time to cue the million responses calling me a Microsoft shill. Suggested topics: "There really was no reason to upgrade from 2k to XP, I still use 2k just fine," "Vista is beyond repair because of DRM," and "Vista is way more broken than Leopard, how dare you rip on OS X."
The first and second are true I'm afraid. I'd love to take advantage of the couple of things that I do find useful in Vista (like the new robocopy that appears to have been intentionally disabled for prior versions of the OS) but not when I have the OS second guessing whether I have a license to run what I wish to. No amount of maturing in the OS is going to fix this issue for me since the crippling is intentional. It's a tradeoff I have to live with if I want Vista....which is why I don't.
I have no love of OS X nor do I use it so I can't comment on the third.
Is abstinence really that difficult?
Historically it has certainly proven to be. Not everyone on this planet is educated, has enough wealth that prostitution isn't tempting, or even is in a position to say no if they wish to. You're not talking about the abstinence of a few wealthy individuals but of everyone on the planet infected with an STD.
I don't suppose you've heard of software that can cause people to die, and in large groups? You know like
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Therac_1.html
That's just one very classic example. There is plenty of software out there that can kill in large groups. Take the software flight control systems for modern jet airliners.
I grant you that control systems are just one kind of software. Financial systems however can destabilize entire nations if they fail and that can lead indirectly to loss of life in a variety of ways. Accounting for billions of dollars isn't something you take lightly.
It is a fact that you have been modded troll repeatedly in this discussion
It is also a fact that you've been modded troll repeatedly in this discussion. A fact that it's convenient for you to ignore. It's also a fact that a person choosing what they say to carefully ensure that they do not get modded down is referred to as a slashdot 'Karma whore'.
Please point to things I have written in this discussion that try to provoke an emotional respons with you.
I'm sick and tired of you asking me to repeat previous dialog as proof that it occurred. There's plenty there.
No, I give evidence, you are simply stating things without backing them up.
What evidence have you given exactly? And what have I said without backing it up? You're just lying, stating this as fact when it isn't true. You've been careful to ignore or dismiss every piece of evidence I've presented.
o know slashdot better than you. I asked where I said that. You did not come up with a quote, despite me clearly asking for such a quote
Dude you gave me a condescending lecture on an article can't actually be moderated as if I were new here. Now you're blaming me for not finding the quote where you did this? You're wondering why I'd call you names? Seriously, that's got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've seen here.
Yes, with incidental evidence. Nice if you happen to run that game. That however still leaves it a bad article.
I don't care what you think of the article. You're entitled to that opinion. What you're not entitled to is your continual insistence that it doesn't belong here and your repeated bashing of me for stating that it is inappropriate for you to decide such things on behalf of the entire community.
That can indeed be called a 'positive discussion'. But that does not make the article correct.
Very good. You ALMOST conceded that point graciously but then had to ruin it with the rest of your rhetoric. You stated that you had seen no positive discussion coming from the article. You asked me to show you where. I did.
I did not decide on nor call for a flamefest. I simply stated that TFA was calling for a flamefest. That is not the same thing. Stating that something is flamebait (and providing evidence to back up such claim) is NOT flamebait in itself. Why do you keep getting that wrong?
Funny that you were more than willing to participate in a flamefest. What you originally said was that the article should be 'moderated flamebait'. While an article can't be modded as we both know, calling for something to be modded down implies calling for it's visibility to be reduced. Your attitude and approach was not to say that the article wasn't very scientific and was flawed it was to call for a reduction in visibility and THAT is what I took exception to since I found it interesting despite its flaws.
This is typical of your style of discussion. I provide examples and evidence over and over again to back up my claims.
You're the last person I'll from whom I'll take notes on how to conduct a discussion. This is typical of your hypocrisy.
You do no such thing. You simply state that you do. On the other hand when I do prove that something you've said is wrong, you either ignore or quickly concede the point and follow with a "but..." where you restate something that isn't related. In other words you ignore or misdirect after I do provide evidence while repeatedly calling for me to provide more evidence in an attempt to bog me down. I've said nothing here that the discussion doesn't bear out or that can't be proven (except perhaps regarding moderation - since I haven't got access to records of who moderated what and relationships I can only have my strong suspicions here). At the same time I have disproved statements you've made whereas you've done no such thing for me.
You are free to believe what you want. But since the combined mods on my first 3 postings in this thread are +12 in tot
"In no part of this discussion have I tried to get an emotional response out of you. You did resort to name calling ('moron', 'asshole') and you have been moderated 'troll' on a lot of your comments
That's either a blatant and flat out lie or you have the charm and personality of arsenic. Each post continues to present a false air of superiority and twists the truth as much as is possible while refusing to concede a single point. If I show something to be true your technique is simply to deny that I showed it or to ignore it and focus on new attacks by yourself that are no different to what you complain that I'm doing.
As a professional software developer I have a professional interest in the performance of OS-es, even when it comes to gaming.
I happen to be a sofware developer myself as if that were the topic. As for your interest in performance "even when it comes to gaming" thank you for stooping so low your royal magesty. Seriously where the fuck do you get off with the high and mighty bullshit. If games aren't important to you skip the article altogether instead of putting down the interests of those who recognise the value of a game even as an adult.
If apps written for A run better on B, it is indeed news. The article however fails miserably in showing evidence for such a claim.
Well that's news to me. In at least one of the 5 cases he presented clear evidence. Others commenting later on presented more. You were too busy calling for the article to be thrown off slashdot to notice. There was a post that went through each of the games in detail and analysed whether he'd shown one system to be better than the other. No I won't dig it out for you. It is there and I'm not lying so if you want to find it you will.
There were plenty of positive comments on the article. You said you'd seen none. Here are 3. If you want more it's YOUR job to find them since YOU are the one who's been proven wrong.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/02/0236200
How will emulators etc. deal with Vista? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Here is what I wonder: How will the suites that provide emulation and Windows-compatible API hosts deal with Vista? "...
by Seven001 (750590) Alter Relationship on 09:08 PM -- Saturday February 02 2008 (#22271614)
"On my computer, WoW runs better under Wine in Linux than on Windows XP. Faster load times and such. Not saying that's the case for everyone, but I have heard quite a few others say the same."
"WoW on Linux (Score:5, Interesting"
I too play WoW on Linux - Without cedega that is. There is an endless discussion on the internal cedage forums about it - but the bottom line is: Sometimes it's better to use an up-to-date Wine with OpenGL instead.
If that's not "positive discussion" based on the article, I'm a monkey. If not for the likes of you deciding a flame fest and calls for moderation/censorship there'd be lots more. A starting point for the discussion is where the author fails in his methology and THAT ALONE would make this article worthy of discussion.
Also several people modded my original response to you positively. Several modded you down as well I might add. However you harp on what my posts have been modded *sarcasm* - clearly this is another attempt of honest and rational discussion from you.
Your original post sank quite quickly which is why I believe you've continued with your ridiculous childish demand. How dare anyone argue against your not so humble self.
That you do not believe me does not give you the right to call me 'dishonest'; you need evidence to back up that claim.
See above. Plenty of statements you have made are incorrect and/or misleading, either wilfully or through sheer incompetence.
you have accused me of abusing the moderation system. That to me is a severe accusation. So severe that you should either back it up by providing clear proof or retract
I don't believe or accept your claim that you wouldn't have the article removed and weren't calling for its removal. I do accept that you don't have the power to do so. However its just about self evident that if you're calling for an article to be made less visible that and you're saying it doesn't belong here, you would have it removed. That is the only reasonable and rational conclusion. Your rhetoric and weasel words don't don't change that. Parroting the words "don't change that" and twisting the truth doesn't either - you just come across as a child.
You claim to understand slashdot better than I but this is demonstrably false.
Slashdot's credibility as a geek site depends partly on the uncorrupted workings of the mod system
http://pepper.idge.net/slashdot/sdot-bs2.html
There are certainly more postings like mine, even calling the article trash. Almost all are modded up quite clearly. And since I have yet to read a posting (apart from your postings) that calls TFA newsworthy
Funny how you don't see things when you shut your eyes, isn't it? Shall I waste my time linking to all the comments where posters did find the article interesting and have commented positively?
It is no excuse that others have done so before, and those that have done so have done so for different articles in different contexts.
If you think you have any inkling of the meaning of the scientific method, or of integrity, think again. You've posted garbage that's easily disproven. Good scientists don't push their own agenda ignoring the facts. Scientists go out of their way to find the truth. Invoking scientific method in the way you have is dishonest and ignoble.
You're a troll not an upholder of science and truth. Yes I'm calling you a troll again. It's well deserved. You wouldn't let a little thing like the truth or honesty get in the way of your argument.
That depends on your definition of multi-tasking. Rapid tasking switching is all that many operating systems do to multi-task.
Religion isn't the problem, blowing shit out of proportion is. Atheists can be just as bad as Christians or Muslims or Scientologists, they are after all - people.
Atheism is about believing that there is no God. When Atheism is elevated to a religion - "either believe that there is no God or die" - then it can be just as bad. Not many Atheists would do that as usually if you believe in reason and common sense instead of a God you're willing to listen to reason and can be swayed by logical argument. Most reasonable people would say we can't construct a society on forcing people to believe any one thing, because if you do you end up with oppression and bloodshed. Instead you have to convince them (which can be extremely difficult, but the alternatives are extremism and bloodshed. Now I'm not saying there aren't Aethists around that believe they should force their views on others - just that most can be swayed by reason.
In contrast "religious" people usually believe in things that aren't based on what can be proven and are immune to logical argument because if their religion says something is so in their holy book they feel they must "believe" or "have faith". You have no opportunity of swaying such a point of view with logical argument. The best you can hope for is some religious people will contend that their religious nonsense is a metaphor and shouldn't be taken literally.
No, it would for instance be newsworthy if the author followed a scientifically sound method; the author clearly did not.. ...because all the articles posted here follow the scientific method rigorously? Gimme a break.
/. Clearly if you'd had the power to remove it you would have and that is what you've called for - what the fuck did you think mod it flamebait means exactly?? - and then you wonder why I use terms like 'censorship' and 'banished'. Are you thick? Do you think if you repeat yourself enough it will alter reality bozo? The distinction you make between a request for censorship and a request to moderate flamebait are flimsier and more logically flawed than anything in the article. You're simply being dishonest.
No, i simply state the article uses a bad methodology and is therefor not newsworthy. You keep coming up with terms like 'censorship' and now 'banished'.
You called for the article to be modded -1:Flamebait. That usually means that people who only view things posted at 1 or above (usually higher) will not see it. You'd make that choice for everyone else. You repeatedly state that the article is not fit to be included on
the fact that the article is not newsworthy IMNSHO.
Yes, you don't think it's newsworthy. Yes, you're not so humble (I'd go as far as pretentious with dellusions of grandeur). That doesn't mean that it's not worthy and that it doesn't belong on slashdot. You can believe or opine whatever you like. Think the earth is flat for all I care.
You know what - debating this with you point by point is a complete waste of my time so I'm going to stop. You can't have a rational argument with someone who refuses to acknowledge a rational point and tries to twist it dishonestly. You're clearly an asshole who believes that if YOU believe something doesn't belong here, it doesn't, and other opinions be damned. Nothing I'm likely to say will change that. It's also quite clear that you are manipulating the moderation somehow. The messages for which I'm being modded troll are way too deep in the discussion and start out modded too low to be receiving enough attention to be modded down a day after the article was posted.
So fuck you and the not so humble horse you rode in on. I'm glad I got to read the article and I'm glad it was posted here despite having to deal with the kind of dishonest fool with delusions of superiority that you are.
Actually, that's about as far from defining feminism as it gets. It's not about bashing the one or the other. It's about equal appreciation of both genders. When will you guys finally understand that?
Perhaps when you stop labeling yourself with a term that is itself sexist and divisive? If your idea of feminism is being pro-equality, find a label that doesn't associate you with man-hating extremists.
I have a wife. I have a mother. (One day I may have a daughter). I don't see them as second class citizens, or toys for men, or servants of men. I do care about their welfare including their right to self-determination and right to be treated equally in the work place. I also respect the differences between the genders (and no this doesn't mean I try to force gender roles on women). I would never EVER refer to myself as a feminist.
I'm sorry to hear your marriage is so lousy. That doesn't mean they all are. Clearly it has made you bitter. I'd suggest you talk to her about how unhappy you are, and if you still can't resolve it consider leaving despite the cost. Life's too short to be miserable.
/. so I'm guessing there are a lot more bitter men here.
Your life sounds rather poisonous and it sounds like you're headed for an early grave if you keep going just as you are simply because you feel trapped.
But then, ask yourself often people marry their friends?
I can't give you percentages. I can only tell you that the woman I married is most certainly and literally my best friend. It was a definite pre-requisit to me proposing. I can't understand why someone would marry anyone they didn't consider a friend, and I don't know what your reasons were.
Truthfully I've only been married for less than 6 months (living with her for almost 4 years though). Children are something I'm about to find out about first hand. So I'll be walking the walk soon enoguh.
What's depressing is that this is modded "insightful" on
Regardless, your life isn't over till you're dead. Make something of it.
It may be of interest to you (maybe because you play the exact 5 games or because of some other reason), but that does not make it newsworthy *for slashdot*.
/. I don't play any of those games. but you already had guessed that, hadn't you. I'm quite justified in calling you a troll - you're clearly trolling here. Please look up "Straw man".
/. - you're not an editor.
/. users who may want to upgrade. I'm sorry his sample size and choices don't meet your standards of professional journalism, but if you look at the other stuff that gets posted here professional journalism is not what /. is about.
Ah because that would be the only reason it would be newsworthy... With your limited imagination you can't think of another therefore the article should be banished from
If I know 5 people with red hair, and they all have an IQ far above (or far below) the average IQ, and I write an article about that claiming 'Gene That Causes Red Hair Makes People Dumber' (or 'Smarter'), then that article is not newsworthy because its claim is based on faulty logic.
A stupid analogy from a weak mind, to say the least, combined with another straw man. The only similarity to the story posted is the small sample size, which I think is the point you're trying to harp on. However the last time I checked, genetics wasn't meant to be tied to hair colour whereas backward compatibility is very much tied to how an operating system is engineered. Also the last time I checked there weren't social issues (racial supremacy) tied to how an operating system is engineered. If only you'd chosen blonde hair and blue eyes instead of red hair I might have been able to claim Godwin (even though I'm no fan of Godwin's law).
Please look up straw man.
>I>And about censorship: you keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means. If someone stands up in a movie theater and starts giving everybody his opinion about the movie, he is told to shut up or go away. That is not censorship. Slashdot is not the right place for that article, since its reasoning is deeply flawed
Yet another straw man, and yet another bad analogy.
First of all you have no right to decide what goes on
Secondly, a person speaking at a movie theatre can't be ignored simply by moving on to the next article. They can cause a paying audience to miss a crucial part of the movie. In contrast if you don't like the article it shouldn't burden you too much to move on as soon as you realize the author is talking about just 5 games. There are other stories posted that you can read.
Thirdly, regardless of any flawed reasoning this person has brought to light something of interest to
Fourth, you seem to be simultaneously saying that the article should not have been allowed on to slashdot while claiming you're not censoring it. Even if you're technically correct (and I don't concede that point at all) it's clear that you'd rather the article didn't exist because it doesn't meet your personal standards, so you're being quite dishonest.
And once again; I am not trying to insult you.
Funny. You're doing an excellent job of belittling me and defending your actions no matter what they are.
The "Please don't (..)" was to express disappointment because I got the impression you purpously refused to understand me.
Oh I understood you and I suspect you knew I was launching your own consdescending tripe back at you.
I do not set people up to do things for me. I am perfectly capable of saying what I want to say myself; I need no ACs to make my point.
What else am I to conclude with the number of AC's coming to your defense. Also if you look at my original comment's moderation at least 3 people thought it was interesting or insightful before it was torpedoed.
I thought that would be obvious, it seems it is not
What's obvious is that you feel justified in calling for the
The question should be: Is that Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt justified?
FUD is an overused term. I didn't say that I agree with the author or found it to be highly scientific and accurate. On the other hand I don't believe he's lying about what he's reported, even if his conclusion from such a small sample size is not sound. I found the article interesting and so did others. If you don't want to read it, by all means skip it. If you do and decide it doesn't have merit by all means point out the flaws. However don't call for or support it's censorship on this board, then acuse someone who objects to that of trolling.
fairly reasonably points ...and... only the way that the OP is arguing.
The only thing that the OP has argued is that the article should be suppressed, preventing any further discussion.
Also, it's "pray", not "prey".
Actually it's spelt "anal retentive grammar nazi poser". When I want an English lesson I'll go hire a teacher you rude little man.
This isn't a formal business letter, it's a message board, on which you'll find plenty of typos, spelling mistakes, and errors in grammar. These discussions occur at all hours of the day and night and are casual. Small errors rarely take away from the argument and are usually only pointed out by petty gits who wish to offer these errors as some kind of proof that they're superior (usually when they have nothing better to say).
When did I say that?
When did you tell me to shut up? Lets see you're accusing me of showing no interest in debating the content of the article, but you object to me telling someone not to call for it to be suppressed (aka "modded flamebait"). In other words you don't want to hear that I don't like someone asking for it to be suppressed. What is there to not understand here exactly?
Which is sadly not very much, except for name calling.
Name calling? Well if you're going to accuse me of it, might as well do the crime. MORON!
My point was that the article is newsworthy. When you call for it to be "modded flamebait" and tell me that it's "not newsworthy" you're saying it doesn't belong on slashdot and are calling for its censorship here. There is no other interpretation, and denying it makes no sense. To throw one of your own supposedly "civilized" insults back at you "Please don't tell me that did not get that?"
By the way getting other people to post as anonymous and or mod things flamebait is incredibly immature. You must be one prize to deal with in person. Thankfully I am unlikely to ever have that pleasure.
I just read your whole little geeky flame war, and I didn't see where he told you to shut up or was rude at any point. He did nothing but debate beautifully with you, and you could do nothing but attack him for it
Posting "anonymously" in response to criticism or getting a friend to do it is childish.
There was nothing beautiful about it. The opening poster wanted the article "modded flamebait" ie. censored and I objected to that.
"Its you screaming 'TROOOOOOLL' at fairly reasonably points and then crying when people call you a troll because you've shown little to no interest in debating the content of the article, only the way that the OP is arguing."
The opening poster was interested in debating the content of the article???? That's news to me. The opening poster wanted it censored as flamebait, which is what I objected to. Get a clue.
"the guy" suggested that an entire article didn't belong on /. and should be modded flamebait and "the other guy" pointed out that this was news to geeks and shouldn't be censored. You may wish to consider trying not to sound like a bubblegum chewing teenager when you summarize a discussion. At least use "one poster" and "another poster" instead of "the guy" and "the other guy".
Time for me to "yell" "YOU TROLL" at you instead?
That's fine. I only had one point to make: that the article is worth a read and doesn't deserve to be censored as flamebait.
Am I trolling? No more than he is suggesting he doesn't understand why he's being offensive trying to censor something that would genuinely be interesting to others.
Now prey tell what was YOUR point since you think the "serious discussion" was "lost" "2 posts back"?
You both just need to learn to skip over what you don't want to read instead of being so rude as to tell people to shut up.
But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.
Such changes:
1. Take time. Generations, literally. A sub-culture already exists but it's not prevalent.
2. aren't necessary a good thing just because they're possible.
The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.
Fortunately there are those of us that can, but to be honest I don't feel like a long drawn out discussion about it.
Please stick to argumentation and stop picking on words.
Oh I'm sorry. Please do tell me how to have an argument without responding to your words.
Keep in mind you have NOT given any valid argument why my response should be modded flamebait, so I cannot reach any other conclusion than that you incorrectly accused me of something because you did not 'appreciate' what I said. I find that a bit sad.
I'm sorry but doing that requires words, and you've asked me not to do that.
Bottom line: You have no right whatsoever to shout someone else down then complain when someone does the same back to you. I stand by what I said. Your comment is just as likely to cause angry responses as the article since you're suggesting that the article isn't fit to be posted and should be censored. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn't mean you're trolling any less.
From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship. (I could put this much more crudely but I won't). Without these urges our species wouldn't exist. You can't suddenly replace that in a generation. If you had many generations that could survive just as well (ie elliminate high birth defects etc) perhaps you'd see human sex drive die off. I like sex, so let's hope not.
From a social and evolutionary point of view, while men and women can replace each other for most things it is still true that the male tends to be physically bigger and buliker, and prefer science and math while women tend to be smaller and have more interests in social bonds, fashion and nest-making. We'd need to change both society and biology to change that. (Note that I'm not saying a man can't be a splendid nest-maker or that a woman can't do heavy work, or even that this should be discouraged - nothing sexier than a woman with a brain, or one that can kick arse - I'm just stating what the trend is currently and that it takes time to change such trends.)
So while a few scornful women may wish to bomb men out of existence but we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Let's all be friends, instead.
Please elaborate why my posting should be modded 'flamebait', for I fail to see a valid reason.
YOU are the one that called for the article to be modded flamebait in the first place. Now you're complaining about someone else doing the same to you. Pot. Kettle. Black.
The article however fails miserably in showing evidence for such a claim.
So the summary was bad. Why does that make the whole thing flamebait?
I fail to see how my post is controversial; I also fail to see any intention of provoking an emotional response.
Your failures aren't my problem. If you can't see why asking to mod/censor an article that might be of interest to others might provoke an emotional response, I don't see how I can help you. If new versions of windows are less compatible with even some software than Linux emulating an old version that is of interest to me, and I don't appreciate people like yourself trying to shout down the article.
How about we mod you -1:Flamebait instead? At least the author admits the article is "a bit biased".
On the other hand you're saying it ISN'T news for nerds that games built to run on a prior version of Windows don't work in new one but do work on a totally different operating system?
Let me guess. You don't think it's news that newer versions of Office won't open old word documents but Open Office will.
Don't get me wrong, the choice of games (besides perhaps Civ 4) is questionable, but make no mistake YOU are the one trolling. The author of the blog article has a point.