This is extremely misunderstood. Gallileo was told not to teach his theories as fact until they could be proven, and to not contradict the church in theological matters, not matters of science.
You make it sound like he was given a stern talking to. The man was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. His career was ended. His published works were banned. He was threatened with death, torcher and ex-communication (didn't that also imply forfeiture of all goods?) if he didn't recant what he said.
One also forgets that the Church was Gallileo's employer (he taught at a Catholic university.)
Well I guess that means all of the above okay then?
Why is this being modded as insightful? If a programmer's employer over-reacted like this it would be news and no one would defend the employer.
Even if you're a religious person, supporting these actions is vile and immoral.
Oh come on. That's as bad as telling a non-programmer if they don't like a feature of open source software, go fix it yourself. You KNOW how little power individuals actually have in changing laws like these.
I'd also like to point out that trademark law, at its best, actually protects consumers from shoddy ripoffs of the product they thought they were buying.
Clearly it's working against the interests of the consumer in this instance, and I see a lot more instances where it's doing more harm than good. Clearly major reform is needed, but just as clearly that's not in the interests of large companies that have trademarks. In the end the consumer gets screwed when it works and screwed when it doesn't and really is powerless to stop it or change the law.
Try using a (web enabled) phone and you can literally do it on your way out the door.
Sorry but I don't want to: a) Spend 5 minutes typing in a URL on a tiny keypad (or alternately keep yet another set of bookmarks organized) b) Pay $1.50 to access a web page from my phone when I have already paid my ISP. c) Try to deal with badly displayed web pages I can barely read
Instant on PC is still useful, though I don't want to bother with yet another mini-OS. Always on PC is the only way for a geek to go.
Fine then. I'm going build my own lunar lander. With blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack. Ah, screw the whole thing....just make sure there are no sharp bits. I was going to add "...and I want a pony" but after seeing your post that somehow feels vaguely dirty.
It's inevitable that a ticket will fall through the cracks once in a while. My first reaction was "Wow, impressive. They retain trouble ticket data for 10+ years."
Funny, my first reaction was if it's true doesn't their software validate the data on the input form being used to enter the requests. Surely anything that's not going to be actioned in the next 2-3 years (at most!) should be rejected.
Rational thought as a template for living life is not a religion. Religion is about believing things in the face of hard evidence (faith). If you want a template for living, one that is as consistent as possible, and that is based on the best evidence we have is much better than one based on disproven or unprovable myths, and a violent history.
The trouble with Dawkins is that he's very abrupt (and the word you use "antagonistic" is very good). Whether he feels he needs to be in the face of illogical argument, whether its out of sheer frustration (quite likely), whether it's a flaw in his personality (quite likely too - he does come across as the quintessential alpha male), it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that he ends up saying extreme and insulting things which immediately put people off side even before he tries to rip away their most deeply held beliefs. Sometimes he comes off as an uncaring inhumane prat and an extremist himself. Another problem Dawkins has is that he makes a lot of money saying what he says, and that eats away at the credibility of the message. Yet another problem is that he often refuses to confront his critics, often saying that they're too irrational to debate against - he should at least make counterpoints when it's a key thing (eg. refusing to talk about how he was portrayed on South Park and when he finally does he focuses on the personal put downs instead of the flawed premis of the episodes which seems to be that "there is no one answer" to what someone should believe without qualifying that some answers are very bad ones)
Now as for other scientists and their religious views, you can look at top scientists and find irrational beliefs and mysticism. Einstein's refusal to accept new ideas was his downfall in my opinion. (Fortunately he gave us Relativity and other good science before succumbing to pre-conceived ideas about God and how the universe ought to be). I don't know if Newton could have gone further with his science, but there's no doubt he spent a lot of time on religion that might have been spent on other things (but then I can talk about wasting time, I've wasted countless hours watching reality TV with my wife, and produced no ground breaking science). It's possible to be a great scientist and yet hold irrational and unscientific personal beliefs. Doesn't make those beliefs a good thing.
And I don't understand why if they 'love' my work so much they don't want to support me so that I can keep making the bloody games...:)
Lots of reasons. Ridiculous pricing. (Take a look at addons for MS Flight simulator. Many if not most cost more than most games do!). Copy protection is another one, already mentioned. (Why should I pay if the developer is openly hostile). Yet another is that they simply don't have the spare cash to buy all the games they want to try. Another is horrendous upgrade policies. Making users pay full price for minor rework (also true of the publisher of the sim I mentioned). Unfair rebate schemes that depend not on where you bought the product but on your citizenship. (again thinking of this same company. I wish I hadn't spent so much on their crap). Then there are games whose copy protection activates when it shouldn't and can't be used for that reason (but can't be returned - some publishers are awful). Or game specs that don't match actual requirements or games that don't work with actual equipment - people do feel burnt out and I suspect most, if they feel cheated, will take it out on ALL game publishers. The bottom line is that you can often get a better product for cheaper by pirating it, and that just isn't right.
I agree if they're playing a game regularly, you should pay for it. By "leeching" it you're guaranteeing the quality of that game and others goes down (as the profit of making such a game goes down). I've got 3 draws full of games, some of which I've not yet had time to try. I buy them when they're reasonbly priced and pull a new one out when I have time. (The exception is the overpriced r/c sim which I just love and which has helped me fly a real r/c plane without crashing. I still feel cheated after this recent treatment).
I understand people downloading a game to try it out. I don't understand these people claiming to be fans! And then to come onto MY forums and ask ME for support and take up MY time for a product they've stolen! All I can assume is that it's just utter thoughtlessness... it doesn't even occur to them what they're doing...
I'm sure it occurs to them, they just don't care. Just as there are people who don't think twice about killing or maiming someone for their belongings, driving around drunk till they hit someone, etc. etc. There's plenty who are scum.
Actually these days I'd be more worried about over-zealous copy protection that actually did mistakenly wipe your drive. I wouldn't install new software that contained such a screen, even if I were 90% sure it was a joke.
Since when are religious people prohibited from "entering secular institutions"? This smacks of muslim holy sites. An intelligent scientist welcomes a chance to meet any prominent individual, even if they don't subscribe to each other's theories.
It's impossible to argue with someone who believes things even if they are proven to be false. One does not welcome such an argument. One does not waste time on it.
To bring it down to/. level, you don't argue with a troll.
n any case, there is currently no unified theory that explains the connection of the spiritual realm ("soul") and physical world.
There's no proof that the "soul" exists. Scientific theories are more concrete. You can start thinking about metaphysics if you like, and whether or not this world is real and you and I actually exist, but for all practical purposes you're talking about unprovable things vs. concrete ones.
Perhaps some day we will discover more details about the connection between these two realms, but until then the two groups should just get off each others' backs.
Until you prove the existence of the soul, you might as well be talking about the realm of the faeries.
No he doesn't have any expertise, no he doesn't have any degrees in sciences - yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science
Which makes millions of people unthinking or irrational sheep. How appropriate they're referred to as a flock.
You're clearly better read and more articulate (at least in this case) than the GP but you're twisting the truth.
And I bet none of them have bothered to find out why Galileo was really excommunicated and just assumed the popular myth was true (simplistically, he was excommunicated for effectively calling the Pope an idiot when the Pope asked for scientific evidence of what was considered a discredited crackpot theory by the scientists of the time, which Galileo insisted on teaching.
That's one extreme interpretation of the what happened that's been put forward by more than one author, but the truth is that heliocentricism was attacked as well. At best the pope had no qualms about trampling on truth and scientific thought in pursuit of a personal grudge and an attack on his authority. If you know your history you'll be well aware that Copernicus didn't publish his work until he was old and about to die. The church also banned his book and he did not take part in mocking the pope as the character Simplicio.
Even if the actual political situation had more to do with maintaining control and power, than with the content of the science, trampling scientific theories to maintain that control is vile. This is from someone who purports to be the voice of God on Earth, and according to the religion he heads is meant to be doing good for all men. Apparantly the mistreatment of individuals is quite justified in order for him to maintain power.
It was the equivalent at the time of removing the teaching accreditation of somebody who insists on teaching creationism and calls anybody an idiot who asks them to justify it. Yes, "condemning to hell" might seem over the top, but only if you believe in hell. Otherwise the Pope did pretty much what the scientific community of the time required.)
Excuse me, but you've now moved from repeating something questionable to saying something that is patently false. If it was common practice to punish someone who went against church doctrine with house arrest (if being merciful as in Galileo's case), kill them barbarically (eg. burn them alive), or excommunicate them therefore making them a pariah within the community, doesn't that speak volumes about why the church has done harm?
Yes, the Pope and the RC church have a lot to answer for, but did you notice how the scientists played it so that he couldn't win? They campaigned to stop him from speaking, then when he cancelled they accused him of playing the martyr.
What's worse. Telling the opposition to go spread their BS elsewhere, or putting them under house arrest until the end of their life, threatening them with death if they didn't recant their ideas, and banning their published work?
You seem more than willing to cast a blind eye to past pope's indiscretions while at the same time nailing today's scientists for basically telling the pope to go elsewhere to spread his doctrine. There is a world of difference between the two. One is much much worse than the other, yet your own prejudice means you're happy to let the worse of the two go. I don't think you're being at all fair or rational, and I wonder what's up with/. moderation that you've been modded up.
Life's pretty tough for developers. Same for the end user though. I can think of one particular simulator I've spent USD1000 on where the developers turned around and treated me like dirt for daring to make suggestions that their anti-piracy makes their software very difficult for me to use (large software dongle, version specific, and I want to use this r/c sim on the train so i have to pick which version in advance and carry a second bag to use it). They even picked sides with people who were hurling all kinds of abuse at me and ended up banning me. Their board of course, but I'll never touch their software again. Screw 'em.
Clearly if I'm spending so much (and I do know how to get around their crappy protection at least for earlier versions) I'm not busy downloading the content off pirate bay. So why am I posting this? Because the copy protection gets in my way as a legitimate user, and because just as users can treat developers badly so to developers can treat users badly.
Your team should put a notice in the about screen (and even if you must in some in game advertising) about paying for the product. Hell you could even make it part of the media content. However you do it don't make it obnoxious though. Then ACCEPT the fact that some maybe even many people will pirate it. The trade off for a smaller less well established company is you get more exposure. Think of the cost of your advertising. Most of the users downloading off TPB aren't the types who are going to buy your software anyway. As infuriating as it must be you lose very few sales in letting them use it. Focus on the users who do support your development instead of trying to lock your product down.
In the end, who is to stop them? The customers never leave en masse like people have been predicting for as long as I can remember. People adopt the technologies. And, everyone just sucks it up and gets on with their day.
Customers have no real loyalty. They buy Office because they've got a pile of office documents. Things like VBA and the UI for Office have changed in the past but for the most part they've been incremental changes that can be dealt with easily compared to changing products.
My first version of Word was Word 2. It's been a long time but I think there was a change when they moved to Word 6.0 and dropped the DOS version. Since then (the early 90s) changes to the Interface in Word have been comparatively small. You could open the same documents you wrote in Word 6 in Word 2003. Complex macros may have incompatibilities due to added security features etc. but many simple ones were fine. Importantly you could take a Word 6 user and stick them in front of Word 2003 and with a few hours of use they'd be just fine.
Now that they've changed the UI completely and are dropping the Macro and old file support, you're not talking small changes that happen every 5 years. Suddenly you have a product that looks alien to an old user, that won't open old document formats, that won't run their macros.
I couldn't think of a stupider thing to do if they tried. They spent all that time killing off the competition and through bone headed moves like this they've just given away all that advantage. I expect alternate suites to start cropping up again. Probably not a bad thing.
I don't want to "rent" the processing power of my own computer, thank you. Nor do I want to "rent" my operating system, or my music, or movies. I buy those things, and I'm free to do with them as I wish.
I agree. Sell me the fucking processor outright and let ME determine which fucking cores I switch on or off. Better yet, let the software do it intelligently for me. This is just DRM for processors. Fuck that.
So you insist that it's good of you to call me names, and be profane, while simultaneously complaining that I return your profanity. Whining troll. Do you realize how delicious the irony of you continuing to pick on one or two minor flaws in my logic while continuing our personal attacks, misdirection and putting up straw men actually is?
No you're not, I wouldn't expect you to care at all. I'm not offended though, I was just pointing out what a pointless insult liar is in an online debate.
So again one set of rules for you and another for me (I guess that's the only way you can win in your own childish mind). When I point out your deceit and your flat out lies, it's pointless. When you call me a liar, that's good and proper.
. Not sure that continuing after I'd stopped is really a necessary part of your stance on doormat playing however. *shrug* whatever the reason, its pretty amusing.
Go on, have fun, knock yourself out.
This from Mr. "Well double dumb ass to you too fella."
Go and look at what that was in response to before you point the finger. I was chuckling when I wrote that. I guess you missed the film reference. Not surprised.
Unfortunately I'm not really in the mood to contribute to your enjoyment even if it means giving up a bit of my own. congratulations, feel free to exult in whatever manner gives you that 'w0000 number 1!!!' feeling. I'm sure you haven't called me troll enough, you should do that some more.
- It's often impossible to compare the quality of items based on online advertising. Groceries and fresh produce especially. How can you tell if those tomatoes you're going to order are nice and juice or saggy and starting to rot. What about that meat. How close to its used by date is it.
- As it is people don't get enough excercise. It's good that they actually go out and walk around with a cart for a while.
- I'll resist the urge to make references to nerd kids living in the basement but you do realize that people like to get out there and do things in person where they interact with others. Granted you're not likely to find a life partner shopping for groceries (though I bet it has happened) but getting out and seeing your local area once every week or two lets you stay familiar with it.
- You're certainly not going to avoid spam by doing your shopping online. (Interestingly this story is interesting because it's a new form of spam you usually don't get at a supermarket...but the only real innovation is moving pics and video. We've had advertising plastered all over our shopping centers for decades)
- There are still a hell of a lot of products that aren't sold online. By shopping solely online you've limited yourself artificially to a subset of what's on offer. You've almost certainly missed out on some good things. You may argue it's worth it to avoid wasting your time with the shopping cart but make no mistake it's a trade off.
- How much extra are you paying for your groceries to be delivered? Not everyone has the extra income. Many people who own a car don't consider the price of petrol and a small amount of wear and tear to be worth what some stores charge (and unlike other goods for groceries you are limited to your local area)
- You could make the same argument about all services. Why do people mow their lawns or do their own gardening? Why do people do their own renovations? Why do people mind their own children? Answer: Because the costs add up. At some point most people find that it's easier and cheaper to do the work themselves - certainly easier than raising their income enough to cover the cost of someone doing it for them.
There's a fantasy for you. Nice polite letter will be taken into account. Wrong. A deluge of them would, but a single letter will be filed in the waste paper bin. An insulting rude and abusive letter will get more attention, but the only result will be consideration over whether you're a real threat, and consideration by the company's legal department as to whether the behaviour means the person can be sued into silence. Oh and it may be circulated unofficially for employees to have a chuckle over "some whacko". Either way the most likely result is nothing since a single letter probably isn't worth their time.
I always thought bottled water would fail. Particularly in Sydney Australia where I live, since tap water isn't that bad. Even after people found out bottled water can be worse for you, or can in some cases be no different to tap water, it still sells for as much as soft-drink/soda. I can even understand sports drinks selling despite being pre-dominantly water but unless water is scarce I don't get why people I normally think of as sane buy it bottled.
It would have been a valid point had you not attempted to make it by misstating the facts.
You picked up on a technical mis-step and expect that to invalidate the entire argument. Pure garbage.
I don't believe I have misstated anything or intentionally lied at all during this discussion
I've proven you have, and done so repeatedly. Not my problem you refuse to accept that little fact.
i have refrained from calling you a liar. You don't seem bound by that particular hangup, so i guess thumbs-up to you.
Oh yes so restrained. You called me an asshole and told me to get off my high horse instead. Then proceeded to proudly try to correct me in the process admitting that you're vulgar. You're the very definition of a troll. Seriously am I suppose to give a monkey's nut that you're offended at being called a liar when you started off so abusively. Quit yer whining.
I'm perfectly aware that my initial comment was inherently self-reflexive, why aren't you?
First my initial comment wasn't directed at you.
Second it wasn't vulgar.
Third I didn't get abusive or vulgar until you became abusive and vulgar. I play the doormat for no one chump.
You've said I'm playing the victim... well, right back at ya, buddy.
That's what you're reduced to? Nyer nyer you too? I'm not playing any victim here, which is why I hurled 3 times the abuse you gave and pointed out the flaws in your trolling logic.
you seemed concerned that your time was being wasted, so i suggested a solution....Which is to accept abuse from a troll. Nice solution.
Yes, because there's no better way to follow up taking me to task for having told you to stop posting than doing it yourself for a third time. well done.
I'm having fun with it now. I can't wait to see who'll quit first. My guess is that the thread will be locked due to age before either of us quit.
Your style of arguing reminds me of how bad politicians do it. Completely and purposefully miss the point, abuse and slander (then cry foul if your opposition does it), hand wave your way through your shortcomings, ignore the actual count or counter point being made
GP is afraid of something that is one of many possibilities happening, seems pretty hypothetical to me.
My entire point and the GP post was about his fear of this happening. I don't care what it seems to you. That was the argument I made. It's pretty clear to me you'd happily argue the world is flat, but that doesn't make it so my friend.
Every time I refute your out and out lies (GP never said blah blah), you try to turn it around with BS and misdirection. You've been caught in a lie. You are a troll. If you were interested in the original debate you wouldn't have started with abuse and you wouldn't continually misdirect the entire discussion.
He was afraid of a hypothetical situation coming true. I'm still not entirely sure why this is confusing....and my entire point was that he has a lot of nerve being afraid of this happening given that all he loses is his privellege and he's not likely to end up in jail over it (as may happen to others). Instead of this point all you deny I even made it and then rant on like the raving lunatic you are about lending != piracy. I conceded that point about 4 posts ago. You missed it because I'm guessing you're in the habbit of turning any argument you enter into your own private argument in your little hobbyhorses, bringing in any external sources and making any personal attacks that you feel make you look big. You're a child. You scream at the top of your lungs and shout down the opposition with BS that has nothing to do with the original argument.
The only person wasting your time is you. Dont want it wasted, stop posting. Not like I'm twisting your arm and forcing you to repeatedly post vitriol-ridden, point-missing bullshit.
You have a brilliant knack for doing something stupid in your arguing then accusing the opposing orator of doing it. You repeatedly abuse and put me down then when I respond to your trolling come up with garbage like this. My advice to you: Seek professional help. I can only imagine what you must be like to deal with in person. Do you do this in person? Walk into a conversation, call someone an asshole and tell them to get off their high horse (purposefully mis-interpretting what they said), then when you have managed to piss them off you tell them not to waste their time defending themselves? Who do you think this impresses exactly? I can only imagine what your social life must be like.
Give it up. You're a proven lying little troll. Go impress someone your own mental age.
hardly wide knowledge. its actually a very short and simple read.
Yeah thanks for the tip - I'll put it on my list. In the meantime you're still being a pompous arrogant pratt. You didn't need to bring any specific book on logic into the argument except in a crappy attempt to come across as superior. You've brought in every irrelevant thing into the argument, from Wittgenstein's Tractatus to my sig in an attempt to distract from the actual argument. It's called being a troll. It shows you have no interest in the argument at all. It doesn't come across as clever. It comes across as what it is: petty and childish.
Afraid of being implicated in potential piracy and actually committing piracy are two very different things, a distinction which seems to evade you.
Give it a rest. I already admitted I used the term piracy incorrectly. I wrote the message quickly. So shoot me. Instead of actually considering my point you chose to attack my technical error. It makes you a troll.
Where in this comment are you saying anything other than lending = piracy?
Fuck you're annoying. Go re-read it. My point was that the guy had no right to complain when as a privileged association member rules affect him in a relatively minor way, compared to say prison sentences for those implicated in aiding piracy who are outside of the association. You completely and repeatedly choose to ignore this point while harping on about piracy isn't lending. Yes, but lending to someone who commits piracy makes you an accomplice to that piracy. I'm sorry I wasn't crystal FUCKING clear the first time.
but rather just continue to talk about some hypothetical situation that GP was afraid of that would be piracy. But of course had not actually happened
The GP's exact words were: However, I frequently lend movies to my elderly mother -- and I'm always living in fear that one of her tennis friends is going to talk my mother into loaning the movie to her, thusly exposing the DVD to possibilities of piracy
- The GP brought up the possibility of piracy - This is what the GP is "always living in fear" of.
He goes on:
-- risking the one benefit I have of being an Academy member
- GP is afraid of being kicked out of the academy and losing his movies (it seems he's more afraid of this than criminal charges as he doesn't bring those up)
Basically I addressed exactly what the GP said he was afraid of not some hypothetical.
As for the question being deserving of ridicule, I disagree. There are people who say those things, and people who would like to convince them otherwise so they'll hop on the floss bandwagon as well, but don't know what to say.
I'd genuninely like to be able to recommend good free software, but if you mention a F/OSS editor you're either talking of vi (or a clone) or EMACS, especially on Unix. I could never in good conscience ask an elderly grandmother type to use either, no matter how powerful I think they are. I'd be stuck finding something that isn't common to hand her. (In a graphical environment I think I'd use Eclipse's built in editor before I switched a user on to vi/EMACS).
Well, that was a dumb question deserving of ridicule.
Well with that attitude, expect Linux to remain well and truly off the desktop. You're part of the problem, not a clever part of the solution.
The question demonstrates cluelessness on a fundamental level. There is no real relationship between whether a piece of software has the source available, whether it is easy to use, and whether it is reliable.
So what you're saying is that software written by hobbyists for their own purposes is going to be as easy to use and polished as software written for "clueless" users by people who are asking money for it and are therefore motivated to add features they themselves would not use, and make ones they would use easier.
Would you fucking hand Vi or EMACs to someone unfamiliar with editors (you know Grandma Jones)?...and you call me clueless.
It was a legitimate question. It doesn't matter how much you wish to put me or my question down, it's one of the reasons open source software stays off a lot of computers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is extremely misunderstood. Gallileo was told not to teach his theories as fact until they could be proven, and to not contradict the church in theological matters, not matters of science.
You make it sound like he was given a stern talking to. The man was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. His career was ended. His published works were banned. He was threatened with death, torcher and ex-communication (didn't that also imply forfeiture of all goods?) if he didn't recant what he said.
One also forgets that the Church was Gallileo's employer (he taught at a Catholic university.)
Well I guess that means all of the above okay then?
Why is this being modded as insightful? If a programmer's employer over-reacted like this it would be news and no one would defend the employer.
Even if you're a religious person, supporting these actions is vile and immoral.
You want it changed, change the law.
Oh come on. That's as bad as telling a non-programmer if they don't like a feature of open source software, go fix it yourself. You KNOW how little power individuals actually have in changing laws like these.
I'd also like to point out that trademark law, at its best, actually protects consumers from shoddy ripoffs of the product they thought they were buying.
Clearly it's working against the interests of the consumer in this instance, and I see a lot more instances where it's doing more harm than good. Clearly major reform is needed, but just as clearly that's not in the interests of large companies that have trademarks. In the end the consumer gets screwed when it works and screwed when it doesn't and really is powerless to stop it or change the law.
IP law is badly broken.
Try using a (web enabled) phone and you can literally do it on your way out the door.
Sorry but I don't want to:
a) Spend 5 minutes typing in a URL on a tiny keypad (or alternately keep yet another set of bookmarks organized)
b) Pay $1.50 to access a web page from my phone when I have already paid my ISP.
c) Try to deal with badly displayed web pages I can barely read
Instant on PC is still useful, though I don't want to bother with yet another mini-OS. Always on PC is the only way for a geek to go.
Fine then. I'm going build my own lunar lander. With blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack. Ah, screw the whole thing. ...just make sure there are no sharp bits. I was going to add "...and I want a pony" but after seeing your post that somehow feels vaguely dirty.
It's inevitable that a ticket will fall through the cracks once in a while. My first reaction was "Wow, impressive. They retain trouble ticket data for 10+ years."
Funny, my first reaction was if it's true doesn't their software validate the data on the input form being used to enter the requests. Surely anything that's not going to be actioned in the next 2-3 years (at most!) should be rejected.
Rational thought as a template for living life is not a religion. Religion is about believing things in the face of hard evidence (faith). If you want a template for living, one that is as consistent as possible, and that is based on the best evidence we have is much better than one based on disproven or unprovable myths, and a violent history.
The trouble with Dawkins is that he's very abrupt (and the word you use "antagonistic" is very good). Whether he feels he needs to be in the face of illogical argument, whether its out of sheer frustration (quite likely), whether it's a flaw in his personality (quite likely too - he does come across as the quintessential alpha male), it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that he ends up saying extreme and insulting things which immediately put people off side even before he tries to rip away their most deeply held beliefs. Sometimes he comes off as an uncaring inhumane prat and an extremist himself. Another problem Dawkins has is that he makes a lot of money saying what he says, and that eats away at the credibility of the message. Yet another problem is that he often refuses to confront his critics, often saying that they're too irrational to debate against - he should at least make counterpoints when it's a key thing (eg. refusing to talk about how he was portrayed on South Park and when he finally does he focuses on the personal put downs instead of the flawed premis of the episodes which seems to be that "there is no one answer" to what someone should believe without qualifying that some answers are very bad ones)
Now as for other scientists and their religious views, you can look at top scientists and find irrational beliefs and mysticism. Einstein's refusal to accept new ideas was his downfall in my opinion. (Fortunately he gave us Relativity and other good science before succumbing to pre-conceived ideas about God and how the universe ought to be). I don't know if Newton could have gone further with his science, but there's no doubt he spent a lot of time on religion that might have been spent on other things (but then I can talk about wasting time, I've wasted countless hours watching reality TV with my wife, and produced no ground breaking science). It's possible to be a great scientist and yet hold irrational and unscientific personal beliefs. Doesn't make those beliefs a good thing.
And I don't understand why if they 'love' my work so much they don't want to support me so that I can keep making the bloody games... :)
Lots of reasons. Ridiculous pricing. (Take a look at addons for MS Flight simulator. Many if not most cost more than most games do!). Copy protection is another one, already mentioned. (Why should I pay if the developer is openly hostile). Yet another is that they simply don't have the spare cash to buy all the games they want to try. Another is horrendous upgrade policies. Making users pay full price for minor rework (also true of the publisher of the sim I mentioned). Unfair rebate schemes that depend not on where you bought the product but on your citizenship. (again thinking of this same company. I wish I hadn't spent so much on their crap). Then there are games whose copy protection activates when it shouldn't and can't be used for that reason (but can't be returned - some publishers are awful). Or game specs that don't match actual requirements or games that don't work with actual equipment - people do feel burnt out and I suspect most, if they feel cheated, will take it out on ALL game publishers. The bottom line is that you can often get a better product for cheaper by pirating it, and that just isn't right.
I agree if they're playing a game regularly, you should pay for it. By "leeching" it you're guaranteeing the quality of that game and others goes down (as the profit of making such a game goes down). I've got 3 draws full of games, some of which I've not yet had time to try. I buy them when they're reasonbly priced and pull a new one out when I have time. (The exception is the overpriced r/c sim which I just love and which has helped me fly a real r/c plane without crashing. I still feel cheated after this recent treatment).
I understand people downloading a game to try it out. I don't understand these people claiming to be fans! And then to come onto MY forums and ask ME for support and take up MY time for a product they've stolen! All I can assume is that it's just utter thoughtlessness... it doesn't even occur to them what they're doing...
I'm sure it occurs to them, they just don't care. Just as there are people who don't think twice about killing or maiming someone for their belongings, driving around drunk till they hit someone, etc. etc. There's plenty who are scum.
Actually these days I'd be more worried about over-zealous copy protection that actually did mistakenly wipe your drive. I wouldn't install new software that contained such a screen, even if I were 90% sure it was a joke.
Since when are religious people prohibited from "entering secular institutions"? This smacks of muslim holy sites. An intelligent scientist welcomes a chance to meet any prominent individual, even if they don't subscribe to each other's theories.
/. level, you don't argue with a troll.
It's impossible to argue with someone who believes things even if they are proven to be false. One does not welcome such an argument. One does not waste time on it.
To bring it down to
n any case, there is currently no unified theory that explains the connection of the spiritual realm ("soul") and physical world.
There's no proof that the "soul" exists. Scientific theories are more concrete. You can start thinking about metaphysics if you like, and whether or not this world is real and you and I actually exist, but for all practical purposes you're talking about unprovable things vs. concrete ones.
Perhaps some day we will discover more details about the connection between these two realms, but until then the two groups should just get off each others' backs.
Until you prove the existence of the soul, you might as well be talking about the realm of the faeries.
No he doesn't have any expertise, no he doesn't have any degrees in sciences - yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science
Which makes millions of people unthinking or irrational sheep. How appropriate they're referred to as a flock.
You're clearly better read and more articulate (at least in this case) than the GP but you're twisting the truth.
/. moderation that you've been modded up.
And I bet none of them have bothered to find out why Galileo was really excommunicated and just assumed the popular myth was true (simplistically, he was excommunicated for effectively calling the Pope an idiot when the Pope asked for scientific evidence of what was considered a discredited crackpot theory by the scientists of the time, which Galileo insisted on teaching.
That's one extreme interpretation of the what happened that's been put forward by more than one author, but the truth is that heliocentricism was attacked as well. At best the pope had no qualms about trampling on truth and scientific thought in pursuit of a personal grudge and an attack on his authority. If you know your history you'll be well aware that Copernicus didn't publish his work until he was old and about to die. The church also banned his book and he did not take part in mocking the pope as the character Simplicio.
Even if the actual political situation had more to do with maintaining control and power, than with the content of the science, trampling scientific theories to maintain that control is vile. This is from someone who purports to be the voice of God on Earth, and according to the religion he heads is meant to be doing good for all men. Apparantly the mistreatment of individuals is quite justified in order for him to maintain power.
It was the equivalent at the time of removing the teaching accreditation of somebody who insists on teaching creationism and calls anybody an idiot who asks them to justify it. Yes, "condemning to hell" might seem over the top, but only if you believe in hell. Otherwise the Pope did pretty much what the scientific community of the time required.)
Excuse me, but you've now moved from repeating something questionable to saying something that is patently false. If it was common practice to punish someone who went against church doctrine with house arrest (if being merciful as in Galileo's case), kill them barbarically (eg. burn them alive), or excommunicate them therefore making them a pariah within the community, doesn't that speak volumes about why the church has done harm?
Yes, the Pope and the RC church have a lot to answer for, but did you notice how the scientists played it so that he couldn't win? They campaigned to stop him from speaking, then when he cancelled they accused him of playing the martyr.
What's worse. Telling the opposition to go spread their BS elsewhere, or putting them under house arrest until the end of their life, threatening them with death if they didn't recant their ideas, and banning their published work?
You seem more than willing to cast a blind eye to past pope's indiscretions while at the same time nailing today's scientists for basically telling the pope to go elsewhere to spread his doctrine. There is a world of difference between the two. One is much much worse than the other, yet your own prejudice means you're happy to let the worse of the two go. I don't think you're being at all fair or rational, and I wonder what's up with
Life's pretty tough for developers. Same for the end user though. I can think of one particular simulator I've spent USD1000 on where the developers turned around and treated me like dirt for daring to make suggestions that their anti-piracy makes their software very difficult for me to use (large software dongle, version specific, and I want to use this r/c sim on the train so i have to pick which version in advance and carry a second bag to use it). They even picked sides with people who were hurling all kinds of abuse at me and ended up banning me. Their board of course, but I'll never touch their software again. Screw 'em.
Clearly if I'm spending so much (and I do know how to get around their crappy protection at least for earlier versions) I'm not busy downloading the content off pirate bay. So why am I posting this? Because the copy protection gets in my way as a legitimate user, and because just as users can treat developers badly so to developers can treat users badly.
Your team should put a notice in the about screen (and even if you must in some in game advertising) about paying for the product. Hell you could even make it part of the media content. However you do it don't make it obnoxious though. Then ACCEPT the fact that some maybe even many people will pirate it. The trade off for a smaller less well established company is you get more exposure. Think of the cost of your advertising. Most of the users downloading off TPB aren't the types who are going to buy your software anyway. As infuriating as it must be you lose very few sales in letting them use it. Focus on the users who do support your development instead of trying to lock your product down.
In the end, who is to stop them? The customers never leave en masse like people have been predicting for as long as I can remember. People adopt the technologies. And, everyone just sucks it up and gets on with their day.
Customers have no real loyalty. They buy Office because they've got a pile of office documents. Things like VBA and the UI for Office have changed in the past but for the most part they've been incremental changes that can be dealt with easily compared to changing products.
My first version of Word was Word 2. It's been a long time but I think there was a change when they moved to Word 6.0 and dropped the DOS version. Since then (the early 90s) changes to the Interface in Word have been comparatively small. You could open the same documents you wrote in Word 6 in Word 2003. Complex macros may have incompatibilities due to added security features etc. but many simple ones were fine. Importantly you could take a Word 6 user and stick them in front of Word 2003 and with a few hours of use they'd be just fine.
Now that they've changed the UI completely and are dropping the Macro and old file support, you're not talking small changes that happen every 5 years. Suddenly you have a product that looks alien to an old user, that won't open old document formats, that won't run their macros.
I couldn't think of a stupider thing to do if they tried. They spent all that time killing off the competition and through bone headed moves like this they've just given away all that advantage. I expect alternate suites to start cropping up again. Probably not a bad thing.
/. comment moderation insanity strikes again. Wonder who I pissed off this time.
I don't want to "rent" the processing power of my own computer, thank you. Nor do I want to "rent" my operating system, or my music, or movies. I buy those things, and I'm free to do with them as I wish.
I agree. Sell me the fucking processor outright and let ME determine which fucking cores I switch on or off. Better yet, let the software do it intelligently for me. This is just DRM for processors. Fuck that.
Well, you were, and needed to, so i told you.
So you insist that it's good of you to call me names, and be profane, while simultaneously complaining that I return your profanity. Whining troll. Do you realize how delicious the irony of you continuing to pick on one or two minor flaws in my logic while continuing our personal attacks, misdirection and putting up straw men actually is?
No you're not, I wouldn't expect you to care at all. I'm not offended though, I was just pointing out what a pointless insult liar is in an online debate.
So again one set of rules for you and another for me (I guess that's the only way you can win in your own childish mind). When I point out your deceit and your flat out lies, it's pointless. When you call me a liar, that's good and proper.
. Not sure that continuing after I'd stopped is really a necessary part of your stance on doormat playing however. *shrug* whatever the reason, its pretty amusing.
Go on, have fun, knock yourself out.
This from Mr. "Well double dumb ass to you too fella."
Go and look at what that was in response to before you point the finger. I was chuckling when I wrote that. I guess you missed the film reference. Not surprised.
Unfortunately I'm not really in the mood to contribute to your enjoyment even if it means giving up a bit of my own. congratulations, feel free to exult in whatever manner gives you that 'w0000 number 1!!!' feeling. I'm sure you haven't called me troll enough, you should do that some more.
Troll! times infinity nyer nyer! Better?
A few points:
- It's often impossible to compare the quality of items based on online advertising. Groceries and fresh produce especially. How can you tell if those tomatoes you're going to order are nice and juice or saggy and starting to rot. What about that meat. How close to its used by date is it.
- As it is people don't get enough excercise. It's good that they actually go out and walk around with a cart for a while.
- I'll resist the urge to make references to nerd kids living in the basement but you do realize that people like to get out there and do things in person where they interact with others. Granted you're not likely to find a life partner shopping for groceries (though I bet it has happened) but getting out and seeing your local area once every week or two lets you stay familiar with it.
- You're certainly not going to avoid spam by doing your shopping online. (Interestingly this story is interesting because it's a new form of spam you usually don't get at a supermarket...but the only real innovation is moving pics and video. We've had advertising plastered all over our shopping centers for decades)
- There are still a hell of a lot of products that aren't sold online. By shopping solely online you've limited yourself artificially to a subset of what's on offer. You've almost certainly missed out on some good things. You may argue it's worth it to avoid wasting your time with the shopping cart but make no mistake it's a trade off.
- How much extra are you paying for your groceries to be delivered? Not everyone has the extra income. Many people who own a car don't consider the price of petrol and a small amount of wear and tear to be worth what some stores charge (and unlike other goods for groceries you are limited to your local area)
- You could make the same argument about all services. Why do people mow their lawns or do their own gardening? Why do people do their own renovations? Why do people mind their own children? Answer: Because the costs add up. At some point most people find that it's easier and cheaper to do the work themselves - certainly easier than raising their income enough to cover the cost of someone doing it for them.
There's a fantasy for you. Nice polite letter will be taken into account. Wrong. A deluge of them would, but a single letter will be filed in the waste paper bin. An insulting rude and abusive letter will get more attention, but the only result will be consideration over whether you're a real threat, and consideration by the company's legal department as to whether the behaviour means the person can be sued into silence. Oh and it may be circulated unofficially for employees to have a chuckle over "some whacko". Either way the most likely result is nothing since a single letter probably isn't worth their time.
I always thought bottled water would fail. Particularly in Sydney Australia where I live, since tap water isn't that bad. Even after people found out bottled water can be worse for you, or can in some cases be no different to tap water, it still sells for as much as soft-drink/soda. I can even understand sports drinks selling despite being pre-dominantly water but unless water is scarce I don't get why people I normally think of as sane buy it bottled.
Go figure.
Thanks for the info. Have a good day.
It would have been a valid point had you not attempted to make it by misstating the facts.
...Which is to accept abuse from a troll. Nice solution.
You picked up on a technical mis-step and expect that to invalidate the entire argument. Pure garbage.
I don't believe I have misstated anything or intentionally lied at all during this discussion
I've proven you have, and done so repeatedly. Not my problem you refuse to accept that little fact.
i have refrained from calling you a liar. You don't seem bound by that particular hangup, so i guess thumbs-up to you.
Oh yes so restrained. You called me an asshole and told me to get off my high horse instead. Then proceeded to proudly try to correct me in the process admitting that you're vulgar. You're the very definition of a troll. Seriously am I suppose to give a monkey's nut that you're offended at being called a liar when you started off so abusively. Quit yer whining.
I'm perfectly aware that my initial comment was inherently self-reflexive, why aren't you?
First my initial comment wasn't directed at you.
Second it wasn't vulgar.
Third I didn't get abusive or vulgar until you became abusive and vulgar. I play the doormat for no one chump.
You've said I'm playing the victim... well, right back at ya, buddy.
That's what you're reduced to? Nyer nyer you too? I'm not playing any victim here, which is why I hurled 3 times the abuse you gave and pointed out the flaws in your trolling logic.
you seemed concerned that your time was being wasted, so i suggested a solution.
Yes, because there's no better way to follow up taking me to task for having told you to stop posting than doing it yourself for a third time. well done.
I'm having fun with it now. I can't wait to see who'll quit first. My guess is that the thread will be locked due to age before either of us quit.
Have a lovely day.
Your style of arguing reminds me of how bad politicians do it. Completely and purposefully miss the point, abuse and slander (then cry foul if your opposition does it), hand wave your way through your shortcomings, ignore the actual count or counter point being made
...and my entire point was that he has a lot of nerve being afraid of this happening given that all he loses is his privellege and he's not likely to end up in jail over it (as may happen to others). Instead of this point all you deny I even made it and then rant on like the raving lunatic you are about lending != piracy. I conceded that point about 4 posts ago. You missed it because I'm guessing you're in the habbit of turning any argument you enter into your own private argument in your little hobbyhorses, bringing in any external sources and making any personal attacks that you feel make you look big. You're a child. You scream at the top of your lungs and shout down the opposition with BS that has nothing to do with the original argument.
GP is afraid of something that is one of many possibilities happening, seems pretty hypothetical to me.
My entire point and the GP post was about his fear of this happening. I don't care what it seems to you. That was the argument I made. It's pretty clear to me you'd happily argue the world is flat, but that doesn't make it so my friend.
Every time I refute your out and out lies (GP never said blah blah), you try to turn it around with BS and misdirection. You've been caught in a lie. You are a troll. If you were interested in the original debate you wouldn't have started with abuse and you wouldn't continually misdirect the entire discussion.
He was afraid of a hypothetical situation coming true. I'm still not entirely sure why this is confusing.
The only person wasting your time is you. Dont want it wasted, stop posting. Not like I'm twisting your arm and forcing you to repeatedly post vitriol-ridden, point-missing bullshit.
You have a brilliant knack for doing something stupid in your arguing then accusing the opposing orator of doing it. You repeatedly abuse and put me down then when I respond to your trolling come up with garbage like this. My advice to you: Seek professional help. I can only imagine what you must be like to deal with in person. Do you do this in person? Walk into a conversation, call someone an asshole and tell them to get off their high horse (purposefully mis-interpretting what they said), then when you have managed to piss them off you tell them not to waste their time defending themselves? Who do you think this impresses exactly? I can only imagine what your social life must be like.
Give it up. You're a proven lying little troll. Go impress someone your own mental age.
hardly wide knowledge. its actually a very short and simple read.
Yeah thanks for the tip - I'll put it on my list. In the meantime you're still being a pompous arrogant pratt. You didn't need to bring any specific book on logic into the argument except in a crappy attempt to come across as superior. You've brought in every irrelevant thing into the argument, from Wittgenstein's Tractatus to my sig in an attempt to distract from the actual argument. It's called being a troll. It shows you have no interest in the argument at all. It doesn't come across as clever. It comes across as what it is: petty and childish.
Afraid of being implicated in potential piracy and actually committing piracy are two very different things, a distinction which seems to evade you.
Give it a rest. I already admitted I used the term piracy incorrectly. I wrote the message quickly. So shoot me. Instead of actually considering my point you chose to attack my technical error. It makes you a troll.
Where in this comment are you saying anything other than lending = piracy?
Fuck you're annoying. Go re-read it. My point was that the guy had no right to complain when as a privileged association member rules affect him in a relatively minor way, compared to say prison sentences for those implicated in aiding piracy who are outside of the association. You completely and repeatedly choose to ignore this point while harping on about piracy isn't lending. Yes, but lending to someone who commits piracy makes you an accomplice to that piracy. I'm sorry I wasn't crystal FUCKING clear the first time.
but rather just continue to talk about some hypothetical situation that GP was afraid of that would be piracy. But of course had not actually happened
The GP's exact words were:
However, I frequently lend movies to my elderly mother -- and I'm always living in fear that one of her tennis friends is going to talk my mother into loaning the movie to her, thusly exposing the DVD to possibilities of piracy
- The GP brought up the possibility of piracy
- This is what the GP is "always living in fear" of.
He goes on:
-- risking the one benefit I have of being an Academy member
- GP is afraid of being kicked out of the academy and losing his movies (it seems he's more afraid of this than criminal charges as he doesn't bring those up)
Basically I addressed exactly what the GP said he was afraid of not some hypothetical.
NOW FUCK OFF AND STOP WASTING MY TIME YOU TROLL.
As for the question being deserving of ridicule, I disagree. There are people who say those things, and people who would like to convince them otherwise so they'll hop on the floss bandwagon as well, but don't know what to say.
I'd genuninely like to be able to recommend good free software, but if you mention a F/OSS editor you're either talking of vi (or a clone) or EMACS, especially on Unix. I could never in good conscience ask an elderly grandmother type to use either, no matter how powerful I think they are. I'd be stuck finding something that isn't common to hand her. (In a graphical environment I think I'd use Eclipse's built in editor before I switched a user on to vi/EMACS).
Well, that was a dumb question deserving of ridicule.
...and you call me clueless.
Well with that attitude, expect Linux to remain well and truly off the desktop. You're part of the problem, not a clever part of the solution.
The question demonstrates cluelessness on a fundamental level. There is no real relationship between whether a piece of software has the source available, whether it is easy to use, and whether it is reliable.
So what you're saying is that software written by hobbyists for their own purposes is going to be as easy to use and polished as software written for "clueless" users by people who are asking money for it and are therefore motivated to add features they themselves would not use, and make ones they would use easier.
Would you fucking hand Vi or EMACs to someone unfamiliar with editors (you know Grandma Jones)?
It was a legitimate question. It doesn't matter how much you wish to put me or my question down, it's one of the reasons open source software stays off a lot of computers.