What is "following the buddhist path" if not a request to follow certain practices?
It is not a request at all. In general, buddhists do not go out to preach. If you ask something, you will get an answer. If you ask a buddhist why he seems so happy, relaxed and loving to his/hers surroundings, you will get an answer. This is quite different from the theistic religions I know, especially christianity. You are required to spread the word and to follow rules. Just recently I followed some buddhist meditation lessons. I am free to follow more, even though I think (and openly state) that (for me) reincarnation does not exist. Every christian church I know requires you to pray, confess, express your devition, whatever. I would certainly not be admitted in a christian church if I openly stated that I do not think Jesus is "the son of god" and that Maria was not a virgin. That to me is an enormous difference.
Mormonism's God is not untouchable, but is expressly approachable.
Maybe I used the wrong word: with 'untouchable' I tried to express "something that I cannot experience". I am simply unable to experience a deity in any way. I csnnot feel, touch or hear a deity, nor can someone scienticfically prove to me that a deity exists. Therefor I assume that no such deity exists.
From what your write, I get a strong feeling that mormonism is so unlike christian religions, that I would not consider it to be a christian religion at all. I do oppose the 'being saved' part of any religion though. Being safe is a wish that comes from our lower/older animal parts of our brain. I think even the assumption that we can be saved is wrong. "Saved from what?", is always my question. Not that I am a buddhist, but buddhism is the only religion that has an answer that actually is useful to me.
Both groups assert that certain practices are required, and both assert that by following these practices you will receive enlightenment.
Buddhists do not assert that practices are required. Buddhists assert that following the buddhist path relieves suffering *right now in this life* (and probably in next lives as well, but you don't have to believe that.) and can lead to enlightenment; that you should know and love yourself so you can love others. If you do not want to relieve your own suffering, then that is totally up to you. Also, no war was started in the name of Gautama.
Christians usually assert that if you follow their rules, you will get to heaven *after you die*; that you should find contact with some untouchable entity outside your own being. No talk of enlightenment in christianity. Contact with god is the highest reachable goal. Historically christians even forced others to live by their rules, because hey, heathen soules should be saved and their god demanded that.
The difference in theory and in practice between theistic religions and buddhism is so huge that Gautama just does not belong in a row with theistic prophets.
Quite true, but from that it does not follow that because something is being censored, it is unsuitable for the public to read. 'An animal is a cow' does not follow from 'a cow is an animal'.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha did not claim to know things only he could know; in fact, he claimed he knew and felt something that we all can know and feel, provided we follow the right path of meditation etc. This even follows through to today IMHO: the buddhists I know are all extremely relaxed people who like to share whatever they do or believe with you (if you ask them), because they think and feel it can help you. No you-must-pray stuff and no you-must-not-eat-pork stuff, but more: hey,you can try this, it helps me, it can help you as well.
The claims made by Jesus, Muhammad or whoever about a diety are just that: claims. You can believe them, or you do not; there is no way of verifying. Buddhism however has a far more real-world approach. If you do not believe in reincarnation, you can still do the different sorts of meditation; you can even reach a higher state of consciousness. You can verify for yourself if it works. That is also why buddhists are not in any way affronted or threatend by scientific theories like darwinism or whatever.
In the Dutch language there are 2 words for religion: 'religie' and 'godsdienst'; in the latter, 'dienst' can be translated with 'service'. In my view 'religie' does not say anything about the existence of a deity or deities; Gautama's buddhism (a 'religie') does also not speak of deities, but of the power/love/empathy/etc within yourself.
Considered the fact that english is not my native language and that I posted this in an insomniac state induced by a 9 hour jetlag after traveling for 26 hours, I think I did pretty well. And the reason I put 'changed' within quotes is that if I do not, there are always ppl on/. that state that one can indeed change a tv or radio, just by opening it up and using a soldering iron.
Please consider that language is just a way of people relaying a message to each other. While I agree that proper grammar and spelling are nice, they are not must-haves in order to communicate.
The 'hands on the levers' you speak of are again totally different. The TV and radio stations were / are themselves responsible of what they transmit(ted). The title for 'hands on the levers of the net' would be most probable for ISPs, since they are in far fewer numbers than either content producers and content consumers and are already leveraging their (in some cases almost monopoly like) powers in for instance the web neutrality issue. But still: ISPs do not create content themselves like in a way Compuserve and the old style MSN did. They are also not able to say: 'We do not like The Beatles, so no Beatles song will be streamed through our pipes.'. This is quite a fundamental difference.
And yes, on some level it is hard to upgrade as with IP, but above that it does not automatically get asymptoticly harder: automatic upgrades for applications, virtual machines (JVM) and even OS-es are not always flawless, but would pretty much keep on working in the same manner if the number of upgradable machines was multiplied by a factor 1000. Problems only arise in cases where for instance a company wields so much power that their refusal to update a progam used by the masses holds everyone back (MS/IE).
The net is so fundamentically different than anything we have encountered in human history, it is virtually impossible to predict where and how it will develop. While I applaud your energy to make the net a better place for all, I am still not convinced that it is necessary.
"There's only a brief period of time in which things are fluid and can change," he says. "For radio, it was the '20s, and for TV the '50s. Then things crystallize, and we have to live with those changes. Right now, the Internet is malleable, and we can put our stamp on it." IMHO this comparison is totally off. Radio's and tv's are simple devices that cannot be 'changed' once they are in the customers hands. Computers are totally different. Applications and even protocols come (and sometimes go); Even TCP/IP is about to undergo a mayor 'upgrade'.
He may be right, but this analogy does nothing to convince of that.
what about the silent and not so silent majority that prop up the regime? Does their support not in fact, pay off?
Well, that depends how you look at it. Being silent lets you live your live normally for 99.99% of the silent ppl. Being vocal pays off in NOT being able to live your life. So relatively speaking, being silent 'pays off' more than being vocal.
What is different now from 5 years ago is that MS is facing heavy weather on a number of fronts: OOo is really growing up, with a certified, fully open document format with multiple other implementors; Google is one hell of a competitor; Ubuntu is improving faster than MS' offerings; MacOS X market share is rising, even more on laptops; Neelie Kroes (EU) is watching MS' every move; dirty MS politics are more well-known (ISO); all of MS' 'visionary products' are nowhere to be seen (tablets are but a small niche); and last but not least: joe sixpack reads everywhere that vista sucks.
And especially this last one may be very interesting: it is now fashionable to say that MS does not deliver good software. When the first features will be dropped from Win7 (which as we all know is inevitable for almost any reasonable sized project) there will probably be articles in the media comparing the dropping features from Vista (maybe even back to 'Chicago' / Win95, which was to have the new winfs filesystem) with the dropping of Win7 features.
Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV:)
I especially found it very amusing that Dorenbosch, the former head of the EO (Evangelistic Broadcasting Corporation), publicly stated that he would pray that Deep Throat would not be aired. Since DT aired we now know that Dorenbosch' prayers are worth jack shit...
Christians (in this case) believe in an omnipotent being that is partly his own son; this son-part is called Jezus. The christian holy book has a few basic rules (the 10 commandments) that all christians should follow. One of those is not using their omnipotent being's name in vain, like swearing. "fuck Jezus" can certainly be called swearing. And for some strange reason some religous people get upset when someone who does not share their religion does not folow their rules.
Also, for some other strange reason religious people think their omnipotent being is insulted or something when some clearly non-omnipotent creature like a human being says stuff these religious people do not like, for instance "God is masochist" (christians), "Jehova is an imbecil" (jews; you are not even supposed to use the name Jehova) or "Allah is a sadist" (islam). For me this is very strange. If an ant says that I am a son of a bitch, I could not care less. On the other hand, if other ants were to pass sentence on that first ant for calling me a sob, I would certainly oppose to that. And since the difference between an ant and a human being is clearly smaller than the difference between a human being and an omnipotent being, it is impossible for me to imagine that any omnipotent being would have me punished for saying something. But as an atheïst you probably think along the same lines as me.
You are not offended when someone says "fuck the non-existence of all gods", because you chose to use reasoning to interact with and try to understand your world instead of dogmas, and you are probably not offended when someone curses on the outcome of your reasoning. If they chose not to follow reason, then it is their loss, not yours. So why feel offended?
Also interesting to note that christians do not like to hear the theory / hypothesis that Maria Magdalena and Jezus were lovers; cristians would very much like to believe that Jezus died a virgin, just like Maria conceived Jezus while remaining a virgin. Of course this was highly cultivated by the roman catholic church, because sex is a powerful force in human beings, and since the church wanted absolute control over the people they had to control sex as well. So, sex is dirty, Jezus did not have any, Maria did not have any, and you should only have sex to produce more souls for the church. So putting Jezus in a sexual context can produce uncomfortable feelings in christians.
But were would you draw the line? A few comments up has the statement 'fuck Jezus' in it. An atheïst may not be offended (and may even approve) while a highly religious person may feel highly insulted. On a similar note, I think it is very, very difficult to have an objective ruling on wether or not something is important.
That's either a blatant and flat out lie or you have the charm and personality of arsenic.
It is a fact that you have been modded troll repeatedly in this discussion. It is also a fact that I said 'sorry' if you felt offended, for that is not my goal. Please point to things I have written in this discussion that try to provoke an emotional respons with you.
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.
No, I give evidence, you are simply stating things without backing them up. Let's take one simple example: you wrote that I claimed to 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. You simply ignore my argument because it shows you are wrong. You are trying to twist things, not me.
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.
I used the word 'even' because I do not play games anymore. Games may not be of importance to me, performance is. I did not write than gaming 'is below my level' or anything like that. I find it strange that you interpreted my words the way you did.
Well that's news to me. In at least one of the 5 cases he presented clear evidence.
Out of thousands of games he could have chosen from, this is incidental evidence. Besides, you can certainly find postings that refutes claimes in TFA, like for instance an update for a game that was publicly available and worked for someone, but the author of TFA did not use.
Others commenting later on presented more.
Yes, with incidental evidence. Nice if you happen to run that game. That however still leaves it a bad article.
You were too busy calling for the article to be thrown off slashdot to notice.
Incorrect. I have explained why before. Repeatedly.
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.
I have read it, but what is your point? I did not comment on wether or not TFA had good observations on those games, because that is irrelevant to the claim that using 5 games that way to make such broad claims is bad method.
There were plenty of positive comments on the article. You said you'd seen none. Here are 3.
(...)
If that's not "positive discussion" based on the article, I'm a monkey.
That can indeed be called a 'positive discussion'. But that does not make the article correct. There are also 'positive discussions' on duplicate stories; that does not mean the mayority of slashdotters would rather not see dupes. Dupes are not newsworthy. Also, one can have a good discussion based on a theme brought forth in a bad article. My claim was that the number of postings that call TFA well-informed and using a good methodology as very low. I asked you for postings that are positive on the followed methodology; these quotes say nothing whatsoever about the quality of the article.
I will try to make this as simple as possible; I hope you do not find this condescending, because it is not intended that way.
I claim the article is bad. I show you a number of m
I don't believe or accept your claim that you wouldn't have the article removed and weren't calling for its removal.
Well, it is the truth. I even gave you arguments to back it up. You do not refute those arguments, but choose to simply state you do not believe or accept my claim.
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
Hold it right here. I was doing no such thing. I was commenting on newsworthiness. A slashdot article cannot be made less visible so I did not call for it to be made less visible! That would be highly illogical.
that and you're saying it doesn't belong here, you would have it removed. That is the only reasonable and rational conclusion.
No, it is not. And you have given no other arguments on this, other than 'I don't believe you' and 'it is obvious'. Stating that something is obvious does not make it so. I do not want it removed because it is a great example now. What is so strange with that?
Your rhetoric and weasel words don't don't change that.
Once again, name calling.
Parroting the words "don't change that" and twisting the truth doesn't either - you just come across as a child.
I beg to differ. Most of your posts in this discussion are heaviliy modded down, which implies it is the other way around. I can and will make this claim because your claim that I can abuse the moderation system is illogical and unproven. If you are right, it should be fairly easy to prove, just contact the slashdot crew.
You claim to understand slashdot better than I but this is demonstrably false.
Where have I made that claim? Where? Try and quote me on this one. You cannot. This is a classical example of a strawman argument: I have NOT claimed to understand slashdot better than you; you try to prove that such a claim is false.
You said in a previous post: 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.
Articles cannot be moderated but comments can. You are in error. I would never claim to know slashdot better than you based on this one fact.
http://pepper.idge.net/slashdot/sdot-bs2.html
That article does nothing to refute my claim. In fact, one can say it strenghtens my claim, because errors in the mod-system (the human factor tends to provide errors) clearly causes this user to object and question the used methodology. If more of these errors were made, slashdots credibility would suffer. I am sorry, but even your strawmans argument does not hold.
But back to why I said this. You claim I abuse the mod-system. This is a serious accusation which should be investigated; have you contacted the slashdot crew on this?
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?
Please do, because I had a hard time on that. Please provide proof to back up your claim; providing proof is not wasting ones time. Please provide links to comments that state the article is a good one and / or follows a good methodology for making the claim the article did in its title.
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.
I am afraid I do not understand you here.
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.
Since you are the one being modded down it would be more appropriate to call your own postings 'garbage'. If you want t
Don't get me wrong, I would probably follow the same reasoning as you if such a vote were ever to pass against me, but I have certain moral standards and I suppose you have them too. So if we were to be sentenced to death it would be for something like in TFA.
But what about war criminals? People who are responsable for genocide? Are they 'allowed' the same reasoning as you and me? I am not trolling here, I am having difficulty finding the line between me agreeing with you and me not agreeing with the 'right' of a war criminal to 'defend' himself against the legitimacy of a law that has been voted on by a mayority and by which he is sentenced to death.
...because all the articles posted here follow the scientific method rigorously?
Articles posted here are clearly not all up to par scientifically; TFA is a clear example. But the posting of other unfit articles has nothing to do with the unfitness of TFA.
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 cannot be more wrong here. Slashdot allows for mods on comments, not for mods on articles. There is no way to mod an article up (or down for that matter). I stated that very clearly before in this thread.
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
I have repeatedly stated that I can not and would not, nor is it my wish to be able to do so. I even stated why it should be left on the main page as an example of bad methodology, with the current 'flamebait' tag on it as well. Why do you keep on saying otherwise?
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?
I CANNOT make an article disappear from slashdot. I DO NOT WANT that article taken off the slashdot main page. That is reality. I stated that multiple times now. You refusing to accept that and calling me names is not going to change that.
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.
Do you mean to say that a request for censorship and a request to moderate flamebait is the same? Because on slashdot, it is not. To mod a posting form a user as 'flamebait' does not censor that user or his posting; it merely gives a value to that posting of how interesting it is (probably) for most other users. There is no way to censor (=remove) postings from slashdot; there is a way (for a select group of moderators) to tag to signify it 'value'. My initial '-1' refers to that same slashdot moderation system: TFA is not interesting enough. Please point out the logical flaw in my argument instead of symply calling it names.
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).
I have offered nothing but arguments in this discussion. If you find that pretentious or deluded, so be it.
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.
There arecertainlymorepostings 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, I think I can safely state the article is not newsworthy for the general slashdot reading audience.
You know what - debating this with you point by point is a complete waste of my time so I'm going to stop.
Ah because that would be the only reason it would be newsworthy...
No, it would for instance be newsworthy if the author followed a scientifically sound method; the author clearly did not..
With your limited imagination
Ad hominem again...
you can't think of another therefore the article should be banished from/.
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'.
I don't play any of those games. but you already had guessed that, hadn't you.
No, I did not. And I think that wether or not you play games is irrelevant to the fact that the article is not newsworthy IMNSHO.
I'm quite justified in calling you a troll - you're clearly trolling here. Please look up "Straw man".
Yes, that you feel justified is quite clear; you keep on calling me a troll. And I have looked up 'straw man'. It is 'based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position'. You keep on saying, incorrectly, that I call for banishment and censorship. And you say that I 'guessed' that you don't play games, while that is both incorrect and irrelevant to me. It seems you are doing what you accuse me of doing.
A stupid analogy from a weak mind, to say the least, combined with another straw man.
That is two ad hominems. And there is no strawman since I gave an example of an (imaginary) article which would also not be newsworthy. I did not misrepresent your point of view and try to use it against you, I reasoned from my own point of view.
The only similarity to the story posted is the small sample size, which I think is the point you're trying to harp on.
Yes, that is one of the two pivotal points in my argument. The other one is the way the sample was chosen.
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.
Genetics is quite clearly tied to certain phenotypes, like haircolour. And yes, backwards compatibility of OS-es is important; I never stated otherwise. I simply stated that the TFA makes no useful general claims about compatibility in vista, nor wine.
Also the last time I checked there weren't social issues (racial supremacy) tied to how an operating system is engineered.
No. Should there be? The imaginary 'red hair article' is just an example of bad science. Just like TFA is bad science. I am surprised you are trying to mix them up the way you are mixing them up.
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).
Not true; I stated the possibilities of both a significant higher IQ as well as a significant lower IQ. Godwin's Law could not be used in the latter version.
Yet another straw man, and yet another bad analogy.
Again no strawman, because I do not take your statement, take it out of context and use it against you. I simply state that you do not use 'censorship' in the right way. The guy that wrote TFA can write that article and more of those for all I care. Every time such 'bad science' is used I will point it out and state that it does not belong on a website like slashdot. I will certainly NOT call for its redrawal. It stands as a great example for bad methodology, so it even serves a purpose.
First of all you have no right to decide what goes on/. - you're not an editor.
Correct. I have not stated otherwise, so your point is moot. I do have a right to comment on TFA, which is exactely what I did.
Secondly, a person speaking at a movie theatre can't
I am not suggesting you do anything wrong. I only state that I have heard a lot of complaining about performance in vista, especially on older hardware. Even a coworker with quite a hefty machine complains about performance.
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*.
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.
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.
And once again; I am not trying to insult you. The "Please don't (..)" was to express disappointment because I got the impression you purpously refused to understand me.
By the way getting other people to post as anonymous and or mod things flamebait is incredibly immature.
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. I thought that would be obvious, it seems it is not. Besides, mod points are not easily acquired and I don't see any way how I can interact with users with mod-points except for asking them in public. And since I have not called on any moderator to mod you down (in fact you were the one calling for me to be modded down!) it stands without any doubt that your accusation is baseless.
You must be one prize to deal with in person. Thankfully I am unlikely to ever have that pleasure.
Yes, and that is also why he shoud not be making a broad statement like 'Linux Has Better Windows Compatibility Than Vista'
It's like saying: 'People With Red Hair Have Lower IQ' based on the fact that the 5 people you know with red hair all happen to a lower than average IQ.
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.
I asked you (note: I did not TELL you) to keep it civilized and not go into *single* words. Please don't tell me that did not get that? You don't see me going 'no, you're not sorry at all' at your previous line, do you? I seems to me that you are going into a metadiscussion because your arguments (as far you have any) have no merit.
I'm sorry but doing that requires words, and you've asked me not to do that.
I take it that you choose this road in order to claim some sort of victory for yourself. This to me is equivalent to putting fingers in ones ears and screaming 'I cannot hear you, I cannot hear you'. Quite sad, again.
Bottom line: You have no right whatsoever to shout someone else down then complain when someone does the same back to you.
I did not shout someone down. I used arguments to point something out. I did not complain, I stated quite clearly before that I asked for arguments. You on the other hand are doing something completely different: ignoring my arguments or trying to belittle them by pulling them out of context while not offering any valid argumentation yourself. So, you are not doing the same as I am. You see? I make a statement and use valid arguments, you simply make a statement. I try to understand your reasoning, you try to take me out on single words.
I stand by what I said.
Which is sadly not very much, except for name calling.
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.
Stop stating I said something which I clearly did not. I used slashdot lingua franca to state TFA is flamebait and not newsworthy. Your claims I called for censoring are silly and without any merit. Why do you keen on doing that? Saying that something is not newsworthy and flamebait is NOT, I repeat NOT a call for censorship. I refuse to acknowledge what you say because it simple is not true. I will repeat it once more: I did not call for censorship. . Stop stating that I did that. And yes, the article was IMNSHO not fit to be posted, but I used arguments to back that up. If someone gets angry about that, it does not mean that my response was flamebait.
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.
Let's see: the article is titled "Linux has better Windows compatibility than Vista"; it's even in the url. Comparisons between operating systems have (traditionally) high emotional responses in discussion groups (I recall comp.os.*.advocacy newsgroups in the pre-www days). Making such a claim (os A > os B) while offering the worst possible 'evidence' (non random 5 out of thousands) can certainly be called trolling/flamebaiting.
I have clearly stated why I think this article is flamebait. You have still failed to give proper argumentation why my response is flamebait or trolling. In fact, on my question: 'why is this flamebait?' you answer: 'you called the article flamebait'. So in your logic, stating that something is flamebait is flamebait in itself?
I am not complaining, I am calling for valid arguments. You continue to fail to give them.
So the summary was bad. Why does that make the whole thing flamebait?
Please, look at the title again. The title of TFA that is. The whole point the writer is making is that vista is worse than wine, because his non-randomly selected 5 games run better on wine. That makes it flamebait to me.
Your failures aren't my problem.
Please stick to argumentation and stop picking on words. The message I am trying to get across to you is that you have not pointed out why my response is flamebait. 'I fail to see' is a friendly way of saying 'you did not make it clear'.
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.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. As you might know we slashdotters are not able to mod or censor articles. On regular occasions comments are given like 'nothing to see here, please move along' or '-1, Flamebait'. They are not ment to really censor the article, but comment on its newsworthyness. Such comments are lingua franca on slashdot, just like RTFA, IANAL or references to the goatse man. That you are emotionally provoked by such a statement surprises me, to say the least.
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.
Well, if you do not appreciate that, than do not accuse me of things I clearly did not. 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.
It is virtually impossible to make 2 different platforms 100% compatible. I was simply commenting that the methodology used is flawed. I am prepared to accept any claim, as long as the methodology used is correct.
If you take the 20 best-selling games of the last 2 or 3 years and run them on xp, vista and wine (preferably multiple distros), then you can make decent claims about compatibility and performance as the general public is probably faced with. Taking 5 games from personal taste says nothing whatsoever.
I am not saying you are incorrect on vista performance, buggyness or anything else; I am simply stating that such claims cannot be made looking at the 'evidence' given in the article.
While I agree on most points (or are not informed enough on some points to comment), I cannot resist but react to two of your points.
Vista really is getting a much worse reputation than it deserves. If you have a fast system with lots of ram and your not a sidebar addict Vista runs pretty good (...)
That bad reputation probably comes from people who run vista on anything else but the latest and greatest. Besides, I would expect an operating system (that has been 5 years in the making) to run more than 'pretty good' on a fast computer with lots of ram.
I think once MS replaces the aged NTFS file system as they had planned on Vista we'll see the Vista kernel grow into something pretty useful.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a request at all. In general, buddhists do not go out to preach. If you ask something, you will get an answer. If you ask a buddhist why he seems so happy, relaxed and loving to his/hers surroundings, you will get an answer. This is quite different from the theistic religions I know, especially christianity. You are required to spread the word and to follow rules. Just recently I followed some buddhist meditation lessons. I am free to follow more, even though I think (and openly state) that (for me) reincarnation does not exist. Every christian church I know requires you to pray, confess, express your devition, whatever. I would certainly not be admitted in a christian church if I openly stated that I do not think Jesus is "the son of god" and that Maria was not a virgin. That to me is an enormous difference.
Mormonism's God is not untouchable, but is expressly approachable.Maybe I used the wrong word: with 'untouchable' I tried to express "something that I cannot experience". I am simply unable to experience a deity in any way. I csnnot feel, touch or hear a deity, nor can someone scienticfically prove to me that a deity exists. Therefor I assume that no such deity exists.
From what your write, I get a strong feeling that mormonism is so unlike christian religions, that I would not consider it to be a christian religion at all. I do oppose the 'being saved' part of any religion though. Being safe is a wish that comes from our lower/older animal parts of our brain. I think even the assumption that we can be saved is wrong. "Saved from what?", is always my question. Not that I am a buddhist, but buddhism is the only religion that has an answer that actually is useful to me.
Buddhists do not assert that practices are required. Buddhists assert that following the buddhist path relieves suffering *right now in this life* (and probably in next lives as well, but you don't have to believe that.) and can lead to enlightenment; that you should know and love yourself so you can love others. If you do not want to relieve your own suffering, then that is totally up to you. Also, no war was started in the name of Gautama.
Christians usually assert that if you follow their rules, you will get to heaven *after you die*; that you should find contact with some untouchable entity outside your own being. No talk of enlightenment in christianity. Contact with god is the highest reachable goal. Historically christians even forced others to live by their rules, because hey, heathen soules should be saved and their god demanded that.
The difference in theory and in practice between theistic religions and buddhism is so huge that Gautama just does not belong in a row with theistic prophets.
Quite true, but from that it does not follow that because something is being censored, it is unsuitable for the public to read. 'An animal is a cow' does not follow from 'a cow is an animal'.
Actually, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha did not claim to know things only he could know; in fact, he claimed he knew and felt something that we all can know and feel, provided we follow the right path of meditation etc. This even follows through to today IMHO: the buddhists I know are all extremely relaxed people who like to share whatever they do or believe with you (if you ask them), because they think and feel it can help you. No you-must-pray stuff and no you-must-not-eat-pork stuff, but more: hey,you can try this, it helps me, it can help you as well.
The claims made by Jesus, Muhammad or whoever about a diety are just that: claims. You can believe them, or you do not; there is no way of verifying. Buddhism however has a far more real-world approach. If you do not believe in reincarnation, you can still do the different sorts of meditation; you can even reach a higher state of consciousness. You can verify for yourself if it works. That is also why buddhists are not in any way affronted or threatend by scientific theories like darwinism or whatever.
In the Dutch language there are 2 words for religion: 'religie' and 'godsdienst'; in the latter, 'dienst' can be translated with 'service'. In my view 'religie' does not say anything about the existence of a deity or deities; Gautama's buddhism (a 'religie') does also not speak of deities, but of the power/love/empathy/etc within yourself.
Considered the fact that english is not my native language and that I posted this in an insomniac state induced by a 9 hour jetlag after traveling for 26 hours, I think I did pretty well. And the reason I put 'changed' within quotes is that if I do not, there are always ppl on /. that state that one can indeed change a tv or radio, just by opening it up and using a soldering iron.
Please consider that language is just a way of people relaying a message to each other. While I agree that proper grammar and spelling are nice, they are not must-haves in order to communicate.
The 'hands on the levers' you speak of are again totally different. The TV and radio stations were / are themselves responsible of what they transmit(ted). The title for 'hands on the levers of the net' would be most probable for ISPs, since they are in far fewer numbers than either content producers and content consumers and are already leveraging their (in some cases almost monopoly like) powers in for instance the web neutrality issue. But still: ISPs do not create content themselves like in a way Compuserve and the old style MSN did. They are also not able to say: 'We do not like The Beatles, so no Beatles song will be streamed through our pipes.'. This is quite a fundamental difference.
And yes, on some level it is hard to upgrade as with IP, but above that it does not automatically get asymptoticly harder: automatic upgrades for applications, virtual machines (JVM) and even OS-es are not always flawless, but would pretty much keep on working in the same manner if the number of upgradable machines was multiplied by a factor 1000. Problems only arise in cases where for instance a company wields so much power that their refusal to update a progam used by the masses holds everyone back (MS/IE).
The net is so fundamentically different than anything we have encountered in human history, it is virtually impossible to predict where and how it will develop. While I applaud your energy to make the net a better place for all, I am still not convinced that it is necessary.
Well, that depends how you look at it. Being silent lets you live your live normally for 99.99% of the silent ppl. Being vocal pays off in NOT being able to live your life. So relatively speaking, being silent 'pays off' more than being vocal.
What is different now from 5 years ago is that MS is facing heavy weather on a number of fronts: OOo is really growing up, with a certified, fully open document format with multiple other implementors; Google is one hell of a competitor; Ubuntu is improving faster than MS' offerings; MacOS X market share is rising, even more on laptops; Neelie Kroes (EU) is watching MS' every move; dirty MS politics are more well-known (ISO); all of MS' 'visionary products' are nowhere to be seen (tablets are but a small niche); and last but not least: joe sixpack reads everywhere that vista sucks.
And especially this last one may be very interesting: it is now fashionable to say that MS does not deliver good software. When the first features will be dropped from Win7 (which as we all know is inevitable for almost any reasonable sized project) there will probably be articles in the media comparing the dropping features from Vista (maybe even back to 'Chicago' / Win95, which was to have the new winfs filesystem) with the dropping of Win7 features.
Maybe he does not like doing business but he likes to make music?
I especially found it very amusing that Dorenbosch, the former head of the EO (Evangelistic Broadcasting Corporation), publicly stated that he would pray that Deep Throat would not be aired. Since DT aired we now know that Dorenbosch' prayers are worth jack shit...
Christians (in this case) believe in an omnipotent being that is partly his own son; this son-part is called Jezus. The christian holy book has a few basic rules (the 10 commandments) that all christians should follow. One of those is not using their omnipotent being's name in vain, like swearing. "fuck Jezus" can certainly be called swearing. And for some strange reason some religous people get upset when someone who does not share their religion does not folow their rules.
Also, for some other strange reason religious people think their omnipotent being is insulted or something when some clearly non-omnipotent creature like a human being says stuff these religious people do not like, for instance "God is masochist" (christians), "Jehova is an imbecil" (jews; you are not even supposed to use the name Jehova) or "Allah is a sadist" (islam). For me this is very strange. If an ant says that I am a son of a bitch, I could not care less. On the other hand, if other ants were to pass sentence on that first ant for calling me a sob, I would certainly oppose to that. And since the difference between an ant and a human being is clearly smaller than the difference between a human being and an omnipotent being, it is impossible for me to imagine that any omnipotent being would have me punished for saying something. But as an atheïst you probably think along the same lines as me.
You are not offended when someone says "fuck the non-existence of all gods", because you chose to use reasoning to interact with and try to understand your world instead of dogmas, and you are probably not offended when someone curses on the outcome of your reasoning. If they chose not to follow reason, then it is their loss, not yours. So why feel offended?
Also interesting to note that christians do not like to hear the theory / hypothesis that Maria Magdalena and Jezus were lovers; cristians would very much like to believe that Jezus died a virgin, just like Maria conceived Jezus while remaining a virgin. Of course this was highly cultivated by the roman catholic church, because sex is a powerful force in human beings, and since the church wanted absolute control over the people they had to control sex as well. So, sex is dirty, Jezus did not have any, Maria did not have any, and you should only have sex to produce more souls for the church. So putting Jezus in a sexual context can produce uncomfortable feelings in christians.
But were would you draw the line? A few comments up has the statement 'fuck Jezus' in it. An atheïst may not be offended (and may even approve) while a highly religious person may feel highly insulted. On a similar note, I think it is very, very difficult to have an objective ruling on wether or not something is important.
That's either a blatant and flat out lie or you have the charm and personality of arsenic.
It is a fact that you have been modded troll repeatedly in this discussion. It is also a fact that I said 'sorry' if you felt offended, for that is not my goal. Please point to things I have written in this discussion that try to provoke an emotional respons with you.
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.
No, I give evidence, you are simply stating things without backing them up. Let's take one simple example: you wrote that I claimed to 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. You simply ignore my argument because it shows you are wrong. You are trying to twist things, not me.
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.
I used the word 'even' because I do not play games anymore. Games may not be of importance to me, performance is. I did not write than gaming 'is below my level' or anything like that. I find it strange that you interpreted my words the way you did.
Well that's news to me. In at least one of the 5 cases he presented clear evidence.
Out of thousands of games he could have chosen from, this is incidental evidence. Besides, you can certainly find postings that refutes claimes in TFA, like for instance an update for a game that was publicly available and worked for someone, but the author of TFA did not use.
Others commenting later on presented more.
Yes, with incidental evidence. Nice if you happen to run that game. That however still leaves it a bad article.
You were too busy calling for the article to be thrown off slashdot to notice.
Incorrect. I have explained why before. Repeatedly.
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.
I have read it, but what is your point? I did not comment on wether or not TFA had good observations on those games, because that is irrelevant to the claim that using 5 games that way to make such broad claims is bad method.
There were plenty of positive comments on the article. You said you'd seen none. Here are 3.
(...)
If that's not "positive discussion" based on the article, I'm a monkey.
That can indeed be called a 'positive discussion'. But that does not make the article correct. There are also 'positive discussions' on duplicate stories; that does not mean the mayority of slashdotters would rather not see dupes. Dupes are not newsworthy. Also, one can have a good discussion based on a theme brought forth in a bad article. My claim was that the number of postings that call TFA well-informed and using a good methodology as very low. I asked you for postings that are positive on the followed methodology; these quotes say nothing whatsoever about the quality of the article.
I will try to make this as simple as possible; I hope you do not find this condescending, because it is not intended that way.
I claim the article is bad. I show you a number of m
I don't believe or accept your claim that you wouldn't have the article removed and weren't calling for its removal.
Well, it is the truth. I even gave you arguments to back it up. You do not refute those arguments, but choose to simply state you do not believe or accept my claim.
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
Hold it right here. I was doing no such thing. I was commenting on newsworthiness. A slashdot article cannot be made less visible so I did not call for it to be made less visible! That would be highly illogical.
that and you're saying it doesn't belong here, you would have it removed. That is the only reasonable and rational conclusion.
No, it is not. And you have given no other arguments on this, other than 'I don't believe you' and 'it is obvious'. Stating that something is obvious does not make it so. I do not want it removed because it is a great example now. What is so strange with that?
Your rhetoric and weasel words don't don't change that.
Once again, name calling.
Parroting the words "don't change that" and twisting the truth doesn't either - you just come across as a child.
I beg to differ. Most of your posts in this discussion are heaviliy modded down, which implies it is the other way around. I can and will make this claim because your claim that I can abuse the moderation system is illogical and unproven. If you are right, it should be fairly easy to prove, just contact the slashdot crew.
You claim to understand slashdot better than I but this is demonstrably false.
Where have I made that claim? Where? Try and quote me on this one. You cannot. This is a classical example of a strawman argument: I have NOT claimed to understand slashdot better than you; you try to prove that such a claim is false.
You said in a previous post: 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.
Articles cannot be moderated but comments can. You are in error. I would never claim to know slashdot better than you based on this one fact.
http://pepper.idge.net/slashdot/sdot-bs2.html
That article does nothing to refute my claim. In fact, one can say it strenghtens my claim, because errors in the mod-system (the human factor tends to provide errors) clearly causes this user to object and question the used methodology. If more of these errors were made, slashdots credibility would suffer. I am sorry, but even your strawmans argument does not hold.
But back to why I said this. You claim I abuse the mod-system. This is a serious accusation which should be investigated; have you contacted the slashdot crew on this?
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?
Please do, because I had a hard time on that. Please provide proof to back up your claim; providing proof is not wasting ones time. Please provide links to comments that state the article is a good one and / or follows a good methodology for making the claim the article did in its title.
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.
I am afraid I do not understand you here.
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.
Since you are the one being modded down it would be more appropriate to call your own postings 'garbage'. If you want t
Don't get me wrong, I would probably follow the same reasoning as you if such a vote were ever to pass against me, but I have certain moral standards and I suppose you have them too. So if we were to be sentenced to death it would be for something like in TFA.
But what about war criminals? People who are responsable for genocide? Are they 'allowed' the same reasoning as you and me? I am not trolling here, I am having difficulty finding the line between me agreeing with you and me not agreeing with the 'right' of a war criminal to 'defend' himself against the legitimacy of a law that has been voted on by a mayority and by which he is sentenced to death.
...because all the articles posted here follow the scientific method rigorously?
Articles posted here are clearly not all up to par scientifically; TFA is a clear example. But the posting of other unfit articles has nothing to do with the unfitness of TFA.
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 cannot be more wrong here. Slashdot allows for mods on comments, not for mods on articles. There is no way to mod an article up (or down for that matter). I stated that very clearly before in this thread.
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
I have repeatedly stated that I can not and would not, nor is it my wish to be able to do so. I even stated why it should be left on the main page as an example of bad methodology, with the current 'flamebait' tag on it as well. Why do you keep on saying otherwise?
what the fuck did you think mod it flamebait means exactly??
I thried to explain that before in this discussion (its almost at the bottom): it is a slashdot way of commenting on TFA.
- 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?
I CANNOT make an article disappear from slashdot. I DO NOT WANT that article taken off the slashdot main page. That is reality. I stated that multiple times now. You refusing to accept that and calling me names is not going to change that.
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.
Do you mean to say that a request for censorship and a request to moderate flamebait is the same? Because on slashdot, it is not. To mod a posting form a user as 'flamebait' does not censor that user or his posting; it merely gives a value to that posting of how interesting it is (probably) for most other users. There is no way to censor (=remove) postings from slashdot; there is a way (for a select group of moderators) to tag to signify it 'value'. My initial '-1' refers to that same slashdot moderation system: TFA is not interesting enough. Please point out the logical flaw in my argument instead of symply calling it names.
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).
I have offered nothing but arguments in this discussion. If you find that pretentious or deluded, so be it.
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.
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, I think I can safely state the article is not newsworthy for the general slashdot reading audience.
You know what - debating this with you point by point is a complete waste of my time so I'm going to stop.
Okay
Ah because that would be the only reason it would be newsworthy...
No, it would for instance be newsworthy if the author followed a scientifically sound method; the author clearly did not..
With your limited imagination
Ad hominem again...
you can't think of another therefore the article should be banished from /.
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'.
I don't play any of those games. but you already had guessed that, hadn't you.
No, I did not. And I think that wether or not you play games is irrelevant to the fact that the article is not newsworthy IMNSHO.
I'm quite justified in calling you a troll - you're clearly trolling here. Please look up "Straw man".
Yes, that you feel justified is quite clear; you keep on calling me a troll. And I have looked up 'straw man'. It is 'based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position'. You keep on saying, incorrectly, that I call for banishment and censorship. And you say that I 'guessed' that you don't play games, while that is both incorrect and irrelevant to me. It seems you are doing what you accuse me of doing.
A stupid analogy from a weak mind, to say the least, combined with another straw man.
That is two ad hominems. And there is no strawman since I gave an example of an (imaginary) article which would also not be newsworthy. I did not misrepresent your point of view and try to use it against you, I reasoned from my own point of view.
The only similarity to the story posted is the small sample size, which I think is the point you're trying to harp on.
Yes, that is one of the two pivotal points in my argument. The other one is the way the sample was chosen.
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.
Genetics is quite clearly tied to certain phenotypes, like haircolour. And yes, backwards compatibility of OS-es is important; I never stated otherwise. I simply stated that the TFA makes no useful general claims about compatibility in vista, nor wine.
Also the last time I checked there weren't social issues (racial supremacy) tied to how an operating system is engineered.
No. Should there be? The imaginary 'red hair article' is just an example of bad science. Just like TFA is bad science. I am surprised you are trying to mix them up the way you are mixing them up.
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).
Not true; I stated the possibilities of both a significant higher IQ as well as a significant lower IQ. Godwin's Law could not be used in the latter version.
Yet another straw man, and yet another bad analogy.
Again no strawman, because I do not take your statement, take it out of context and use it against you. I simply state that you do not use 'censorship' in the right way. The guy that wrote TFA can write that article and more of those for all I care. Every time such 'bad science' is used I will point it out and state that it does not belong on a website like slashdot. I will certainly NOT call for its redrawal. It stands as a great example for bad methodology, so it even serves a purpose.
First of all you have no right to decide what goes on /. - you're not an editor.
Correct. I have not stated otherwise, so your point is moot. I do have a right to comment on TFA, which is exactely what I did.
Secondly, a person speaking at a movie theatre can't
I am not suggesting you do anything wrong. I only state that I have heard a lot of complaining about performance in vista, especially on older hardware. Even a coworker with quite a hefty machine complains about performance.
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*.
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.
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.
And once again; I am not trying to insult you. The "Please don't (..)" was to express disappointment because I got the impression you purpously refused to understand me.
By the way getting other people to post as anonymous and or mod things flamebait is incredibly immature.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. I thought that would be obvious, it seems it is not. Besides, mod points are not easily acquired and I don't see any way how I can interact with users with mod-points except for asking them in public. And since I have not called on any moderator to mod you down (in fact you were the one calling for me to be modded down!) it stands without any doubt that your accusation is baseless.
You must be one prize to deal with in person. Thankfully I am unlikely to ever have that pleasure.Please look up 'ad hominem' attack.
Yes, and that is also why he shoud not be making a broad statement like 'Linux Has Better Windows Compatibility Than Vista'
It's like saying: 'People With Red Hair Have Lower IQ' based on the fact that the 5 people you know with red hair all happen to a lower than average IQ.
(...)
Oh I'm sorry. Please do tell me how to have an argument without responding to your words.I asked you (note: I did not TELL you) to keep it civilized and not go into *single* words. Please don't tell me that did not get that? You don't see me going 'no, you're not sorry at all' at your previous line, do you? I seems to me that you are going into a metadiscussion because your arguments (as far you have any) have no merit.
I'm sorry but doing that requires words, and you've asked me not to do that.I take it that you choose this road in order to claim some sort of victory for yourself. This to me is equivalent to putting fingers in ones ears and screaming 'I cannot hear you, I cannot hear you'. Quite sad, again.
Bottom line: You have no right whatsoever to shout someone else down then complain when someone does the same back to you.I did not shout someone down. I used arguments to point something out. I did not complain, I stated quite clearly before that I asked for arguments. You on the other hand are doing something completely different: ignoring my arguments or trying to belittle them by pulling them out of context while not offering any valid argumentation yourself. So, you are not doing the same as I am. You see? I make a statement and use valid arguments, you simply make a statement. I try to understand your reasoning, you try to take me out on single words.
I stand by what I said.Which is sadly not very much, except for name calling.
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.Stop stating I said something which I clearly did not. I used slashdot lingua franca to state TFA is flamebait and not newsworthy. Your claims I called for censoring are silly and without any merit. Why do you keen on doing that? Saying that something is not newsworthy and flamebait is NOT, I repeat NOT a call for censorship. I refuse to acknowledge what you say because it simple is not true. I will repeat it once more: I did not call for censorship. . Stop stating that I did that. And yes, the article was IMNSHO not fit to be posted, but I used arguments to back that up. If someone gets angry about that, it does not mean that my response was flamebait.
Let's see: the article is titled "Linux has better Windows compatibility than Vista"; it's even in the url. Comparisons between operating systems have (traditionally) high emotional responses in discussion groups (I recall comp.os.*.advocacy newsgroups in the pre-www days). Making such a claim (os A > os B) while offering the worst possible 'evidence' (non random 5 out of thousands) can certainly be called trolling/flamebaiting.
I have clearly stated why I think this article is flamebait. You have still failed to give proper argumentation why my response is flamebait or trolling. In fact, on my question: 'why is this flamebait?' you answer: 'you called the article flamebait'. So in your logic, stating that something is flamebait is flamebait in itself?
I am not complaining, I am calling for valid arguments. You continue to fail to give them.
So the summary was bad. Why does that make the whole thing flamebait?Please, look at the title again. The title of TFA that is. The whole point the writer is making is that vista is worse than wine, because his non-randomly selected 5 games run better on wine. That makes it flamebait to me.
Your failures aren't my problem.Please stick to argumentation and stop picking on words. The message I am trying to get across to you is that you have not pointed out why my response is flamebait. 'I fail to see' is a friendly way of saying 'you did not make it clear'.
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.Ah, now we are getting somewhere. As you might know we slashdotters are not able to mod or censor articles. On regular occasions comments are given like 'nothing to see here, please move along' or '-1, Flamebait'. They are not ment to really censor the article, but comment on its newsworthyness. Such comments are lingua franca on slashdot, just like RTFA, IANAL or references to the goatse man. That you are emotionally provoked by such a statement surprises me, to say the least.
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.Well, if you do not appreciate that, than do not accuse me of things I clearly did not. 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'll hold :-)
It is virtually impossible to make 2 different platforms 100% compatible. I was simply commenting that the methodology used is flawed. I am prepared to accept any claim, as long as the methodology used is correct.
If you take the 20 best-selling games of the last 2 or 3 years and run them on xp, vista and wine (preferably multiple distros), then you can make decent claims about compatibility and performance as the general public is probably faced with. Taking 5 games from personal taste says nothing whatsoever.
I am not saying you are incorrect on vista performance, buggyness or anything else; I am simply stating that such claims cannot be made looking at the 'evidence' given in the article.
While I agree on most points (or are not informed enough on some points to comment), I cannot resist but react to two of your points.
Vista really is getting a much worse reputation than it deserves. If you have a fast system with lots of ram and your not a sidebar addict Vista runs pretty good (...)That bad reputation probably comes from people who run vista on anything else but the latest and greatest. Besides, I would expect an operating system (that has been 5 years in the making) to run more than 'pretty good' on a fast computer with lots of ram.
I think once MS replaces the aged NTFS file system as they had planned on Vista we'll see the Vista kernel grow into something pretty useful.The new 'filesystem' (some 10+ years in the making now) was in the recent years reported on as a layer on top of ntfs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS#Architecture).