I still play MoO2, so I get the appeal of playing an old game because the game play rocks. However, when it comes to graphics not mattering, I'd say that is really only true for strategy type games.
Graphics matter a lot when creating an atmosphere, if the game is telling a story or trying to draw you into a world the graphics can be very important.
Other genre's won't have the replay value, games where you solve given puzzles lose appeal when you know them. Games with strong story lines will lose appeal unless there are lots of branches to explore. Playing the same levels solo on action games also get boring.
It doesn't mean these games aren't engaging, just you have to judge them on different terms. You won't get the same number of hours of game play from them, and you have to realise that up front when you buy it. That doesn't make it a waste if you recognise that and still enjoy the game.
In America, we all agree that girls and boys that are 15 years old should not be having sex, rather they should be having a full childhood.
I'm sure alot of the adults in America (or the USA anyway) feel that way. Problem is, reality disagrees. Children are becoming sexually mature at increasingly early ages, probably due to better nutrition. 15 year olds are not "boys and girls" anymore, they aren't children anymore, but not yet adults.
Because they aren't adults, most countries have laws to protect them for adults taking advantage. However, a lot of places also have laws that recognise they aren't out to punish two teenagers from having sex, and either encode it in the law (things like a 14 year old can sleep with a 16 year old), or just don't prosecute in those cases.
This is true in some American states, not just us wacky liberal Europeans. So I think your making some unfounded generalisations about American society. I'm sure parts would like to pretend 15 year olds aren't sexual and are doing nice wholesome things, but that just isn't how it is. People in general don't respect any law that ignores the real situation, and certainly are going to find laws against 17 year old (which was what the parent was talking about) absurd and not worthy of respect.
All software has bugs, with something like a browser that is a potential vector for viruses, malware and the like the important thing is how quickly they are fixed.
So far the Mozilla seems to be getting stuff fixed pretty quickly.
Evolution doesn't require similar faith. It requires some faith, because all science does. Faith that if lots of people observe something, we can take it that that thing is actually happening. Faith in cause and effect. Faith that the universe is consistent in the rules it follows, they won't all change tomorrow, and didn't all change yesterday (and when they did change, like the very early universe, there were rules and reasons to it).
Evolution is based on observations, scientists started with some observed facts, came up with a hypothesis and looked for evidence to back it up.
Now, scientists have been wrong in the past, science is a process after all. So far though there hasn't been any alternative hypothesis that holds up nearly as well, while evolution has moved from hypothesis to theory.
Creationism comes from myths and a time when people explained things they didn't understand with magic and gods. People believe in it now because they were taught it, or because it is written in the bible.
There is a difference between believing something because it is the best explanation science currently has to offer, and believing something because it's a very old myth. Of course you can blindly cling to scientific theories irrationally when presented with differing facts, and that is as unreasonable as blindly clinging to religious beliefs when presented with alternate facts.
Just because gravity isn't a force doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things fall to earth, mass is attracted to other mass and we call that phenomenon "gravity". The curvature of space-time is an explanation of gravity and the behaviour we see.
GR, and SR, are really good in certain circumstance, but break down in others. Certainly scientists are looking to both test relativity in the places it works (like the recent satalite frame dragging experiments) and come up with new theories where it breaks downs, ones that will explain both quantum and macro level behaviour.
Evolution isn't like GR, it doesn't have a equations, it is a much more general observation. In fact, it's more like gravity, stuff falls, animals evolve, the interesting science is in figuring out how and why. Scientists aren't looking to replace evolution but refine it and figure out the specific details.
The discovery of DNA had a huge impact on evolutionary theory. There is research into how much impact spontaneous mutation has vs gradual section, and is evolution slow and steady vs sudden bursts.
While you can certainly believe in God and be a scientist, you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist. If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
Even if you can afford something it has an opportunity cost, and that may be too great.
A new app Windows can use is going to bring in much more users than expanding an app to Linux or the Mac.
So sure, maybe you spend (to pull figures out of the air) 500,000 getting the desktop apps onto Linux and the Mac, and that nets you 1 million return in greater users and so ad revenue. Or maybe you could spend that 500,000 on a new project that gets 4 million return in revenue.
Meaning the networks are better at deciding what content the masses want rather then the masses is rediculous! It may be true in the sense that the networks are the only ones who can control the distribution of said content, good or otherwise.
I don't think that is what it means. I think what it means is the networks are better at making content. This is because they have money and employ lots of people who make TV professionally. Doesn't mean it is all good, but it has a better chance of being something people will want to watch that something made my Joe Random Person.
I also don't think "the masses" will ever be making TV. Few will have the inclination, skills and drive. It takes far more to be an active producer of content than an active consumer.
If one thing the internee has done is lower the bar for people to get their creative works out to people.
If Sturgeon's Law of 90% of everything is crap was true before, as you lower the bar the percentage of crap goes up and finding the good stuff harder.
I can't help but think TV like this will suffer the same problems, but made worse that it requires more technical skills and money (or at least access to equipment) than say writing or making music. Look at public access TV and fan films.
This is as likely to kill TV as internee fan fiction is to kill books. That doesn't make this a bad project, I'm sure people will have fun making and watching stuff, but it isn't a replacement for commercial TV.
I think it was a pretty cruddy article, but I also think you missed something.
Also wrong. There are distros that are like that, but there are distros that aren't. Linux offers choice, and not just the "bag of Legos" kind.
I think that was the point actually. You can't just take a program written for Linux, put it on a Linux server, or all the Linux servers in your organisation and expect it to run.
As for WINE, if it gets to the day it's as easy to install and runs stuff with WINE as Windows you are right, users won't care. I'm sceptical it will ever get there though, as Windows is something of a moving target, looks like Longhorn will introduce a bunch of new APIs, and most of the stuff will be made available for XP.
Automation puts people out of work, hell if you are unemployed you don't work any days per week. Not that I'm saying automation is bad, but if you want stuff, you need to work for it. If automation put you out, you change careers.
Maybe they think that their patents would stand up well to reivew, but rivals would not. So examination of patents and the system would actually leave them with a bigger relative advantage in terms of the patents they hold.
I'm beginning to fear the impending rise of Japan's technological skills.
The impending rise? Where have you been for the last few decades? As a country their technological skills and drive have been cutting edge for a long time now.
With their recent attempt to amend their constitution to allow for a standing army
If my country was that close the North Korea and China I'd really want it to have a standing army too. I guess they could rely on the Americans for ever, but they have a lot of other commitments and what if you don't always agree with them?
changes to their textbooks that make their actions during WW2 seem honorable instead of atrocious
Now that's a massive generalisation, assuming you are talking about the same thing as the Chinese have been protesting about. A textbook, not all, done by a company not the government referred to the rape of Nanking as an "incident". Now that isn't good, it was a massacre and a war crime, but you may be generalising just a bit from it.
But wouldn't the BEST way to help disabled people would be to research stem cells and how to regenerate nerves and muscles
It would be another way. We don't know it would be the best way until we tried both. Even then, best how? Cost? How quickly it is available? Quality of life for sufferers? Percentage of sufferers it works for?
It's pretty rare with medical conditions that one treatment works for everyone. Researching multiple ways to deal with it is generally a good thing, that saying about all you eggs in one basket.
Yes, exos could have military applications, (a lot of tech can, if it can it usually gets used) the US army has already said it is interested, and researching. Given their military budget they would almost certainly be the first to use such technology if it becomes practical.
An exoskeleton isn't a mecha, and doesn't have to be nearly that big. From a military point of view everything has limitations. Tanks are great in open country, but not so good in built up areas. If exoskeletons have a militray application it would more likely be urban areas and rough terrain where their greater mobility would be an asset.
Funny that we barely have the technology to build them now but could build them in WWII.
So the choice was, go with proprietary software that does what you want or... do what exactly? There wasn't any open source software that filled the need.
If Linus' assement about the impact it has had on his productivity is right, if he had chose open source software that didn't fit his needs, the Linux kernel wouldn't be as far along now as it is.
Even having to abandon it now, that extra productivity isn't lost, and the kernel is more developed that it would have been.
Pragmatically it doesn't seem like a bad choice, plus it may have helped spur on some more development on open source alternatives.
removed much of the stimulus to create really first-class open source source control programs
Seems to me a lot like the opposite happened. All the people objecting to the use of non-free software by Linus has encouraged adding BitKeeper like features to open source alternatives.
Re:and thus, R.Stallman was right after all
on
No More BitKeeper Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper.
Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen.
So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice.
So what, we shouldn't look at trying to cure people going blind because it might lead to people wanting to improve their bodies?
I don't really see a problem with any of the things you mention, unless it leads to health risks or people without them being descriminated against. If people want better bodies, or smarted, healthier children, I don't see an issue with that in itself.
It isn't supposed to, from the blog comments it looks like the whitelist stuff isn't working properly yet.
When it does (and I assume it won't go into FireFox until this is fixes) it will be like the normal pop-up blocker and allow through the ones the user wants.
I thought in the US ISPs and people who host sites were only obliged to take down copyright material when informed about it, not police it themseleves.
As long as Google acts when informed about violations, they should be fine, just like and web hosting company.
Go study some quantum mechanics and you find that as you try to get to the fundamental levels of matter, the thing that make up everything else, it isn't simple at all. It's strangle, complex and very counter intuitive.
Just because you want to apply a human idea (fundamental level is simple) to the universe doesn't meant it will oblige you. Our brains are geared to thinking a certain way based on the experience of the world around us, things like cause and effect. As we try and peer in the fundamental ways of the universe it seems it works in very different ways, and consequently we don't find it simple at all.
There isn't any simpler way but some people can wrap their head around it, and come up with the theories, and use them successfully to predict things. I'm not sure what other possible definition of "real understanding" you have.
Unless you believe the universe is really made for our benefit, there is no reason to believe it can be resolved into something we find simple. We may lack the maths or science to express parts of it, or the cognitive ability to even envisage some of the ways it works.
You are caught up in semantics and circular reasoning here.
Fundamental != Simple
Fundamental, in this context (fundamental laws of the universe) just means the foundation or base. Just because you can't break them down more doesn't mean it is simple, or humans can understand it, or laypeople can understand it.
If there is one unified theory of everything, it would be the most fundamental one, from which everything derives, but it could be mathematically and conceptually very complex indeed.
Theories predicting more are often more complex. For example, Newton's laws of motion are quite simple to understand, and the maths is simple. However, they are limited in scope. Relativity covers more, is more "fundamental" to understanding how the universe works, but is much more complex.
If I understand Newton's Laws (and there limitations) but not GR and SR, I'm clearly not as clueless as someong who doesn't know them. Nobody knows a general theory of everything, yet some people are much more clued up on science than others.
Complex theories don't mean the people involved don't understand. They often just mean as best we understand it, parts of reality are pretty damn complex. The real test is if these theories offer predictive abilities. If experimentation hold up the theory it is hard to dismiss the originators as "clueless".
If you work in a specialised area of science then you think in those specialise terms all the time. You don't need to translate it into something simple because you (and your peers) know exactly what you are talking about, and any simplification would loose details.
To take something complex, turn it into something relatively simple and loose as little as possible as a different and rare skill. This is why scientific geniuses and good science TV presenters tend not to overlap much. One comes up with complex theories, another can explain complex theories to the lay person. Doesn't mean the first doesn't know what they are talking about.
It may irk you that some very smart people know and understand stuff you don't, that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
I get an object cannot accelerate past the speed of light. I get an object cannot reach escape velocity for a black hole.
However, my point is you don't need to reach escape velocity to escape from an object's gravity, escape velocity is for unpowered objects, objects exerting their own force don't need to reach escape velocity.
The fact it is under it's own power is entirely relevant, becuase if it is escape velocity doesn't apply, escape velocity applies when the only factors are the object escaping's speed and the gravity field it is escaping from.
So, if I want to leave a planet by, say, firing out a gun, I need to be travelling at escape velocity (assuming no atmosphere). However, in a rocket I just need to excert more force in thrust that the planet's gravity does on my rocket. If I do this I can leave without ever reaching escape velocity.
Now, since I can leave a gravity field without ever reaching escape velocity, why can't I get out from the even horizon behind a black hole without even reaching escape velocity? (Ignoring the gravity, tidal forces, blueshift, time dilation etc that would kill me).
I assume there is a reason, just curious what it would be.
Slashdot Mirror
I still play MoO2, so I get the appeal of playing an old game because the game play rocks. However, when it comes to graphics not mattering, I'd say that is really only true for strategy type games.
Graphics matter a lot when creating an atmosphere, if the game is telling a story or trying to draw you into a world the graphics can be very important.
Other genre's won't have the replay value, games where you solve given puzzles lose appeal when you know them. Games with strong story lines will lose appeal unless there are lots of branches to explore. Playing the same levels solo on action games also get boring.
It doesn't mean these games aren't engaging, just you have to judge them on different terms. You won't get the same number of hours of game play from them, and you have to realise that up front when you buy it. That doesn't make it a waste if you recognise that and still enjoy the game.
The Supremes seem to disagree with you, as various attempts to filter in places like libraries has been struck down.
In America, we all agree that girls and boys that are 15 years old should not be having sex, rather they should be having a full childhood.
I'm sure alot of the adults in America (or the USA anyway) feel that way. Problem is, reality disagrees. Children are becoming sexually mature at increasingly early ages, probably due to better nutrition. 15 year olds are not "boys and girls" anymore, they aren't children anymore, but not yet adults.
Because they aren't adults, most countries have laws to protect them for adults taking advantage. However, a lot of places also have laws that recognise they aren't out to punish two teenagers from having sex, and either encode it in the law (things like a 14 year old can sleep with a 16 year old), or just don't prosecute in those cases.
This is true in some American states, not just us wacky liberal Europeans. So I think your making some unfounded generalisations about American society. I'm sure parts would like to pretend 15 year olds aren't sexual and are doing nice wholesome things, but that just isn't how it is. People in general don't respect any law that ignores the real situation, and certainly are going to find laws against 17 year old (which was what the parent was talking about) absurd and not worthy of respect.
All software has bugs, with something like a browser that is a potential vector for viruses, malware and the like the important thing is how quickly they are fixed.
So far the Mozilla seems to be getting stuff fixed pretty quickly.
Evolution doesn't require similar faith. It requires some faith, because all science does. Faith that if lots of people observe something, we can take it that that thing is actually happening. Faith in cause and effect. Faith that the universe is consistent in the rules it follows, they won't all change tomorrow, and didn't all change yesterday (and when they did change, like the very early universe, there were rules and reasons to it).
Evolution is based on observations, scientists started with some observed facts, came up with a hypothesis and looked for evidence to back it up.
Now, scientists have been wrong in the past, science is a process after all. So far though there hasn't been any alternative hypothesis that holds up nearly as well, while evolution has moved from hypothesis to theory.
Creationism comes from myths and a time when people explained things they didn't understand with magic and gods. People believe in it now because they were taught it, or because it is written in the bible.
There is a difference between believing something because it is the best explanation science currently has to offer, and believing something because it's a very old myth. Of course you can blindly cling to scientific theories irrationally when presented with differing facts, and that is as unreasonable as blindly clinging to religious beliefs when presented with alternate facts.
Just because gravity isn't a force doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Things fall to earth, mass is attracted to other mass and we call that phenomenon "gravity". The curvature of space-time is an explanation of gravity and the behaviour we see.
GR, and SR, are really good in certain circumstance, but break down in others. Certainly scientists are looking to both test relativity in the places it works (like the recent satalite frame dragging experiments) and come up with new theories where it breaks downs, ones that will explain both quantum and macro level behaviour.
Evolution isn't like GR, it doesn't have a equations, it is a much more general observation. In fact, it's more like gravity, stuff falls, animals evolve, the interesting science is in figuring out how and why. Scientists aren't looking to replace evolution but refine it and figure out the specific details.
The discovery of DNA had a huge impact on evolutionary theory. There is research into how much impact spontaneous mutation has vs gradual section, and is evolution slow and steady vs sudden bursts.
While you can certainly believe in God and be a scientist, you can't be a Creationist and a (good) scientist. If you reject the outcome of the scientific method because of faith or dogma, you aren't doing good science period. Of course if your area is nothing to do with biology it isn't going to intefere with you science. I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.
Even if you can afford something it has an opportunity cost, and that may be too great.
A new app Windows can use is going to bring in much more users than expanding an app to Linux or the Mac.
So sure, maybe you spend (to pull figures out of the air) 500,000 getting the desktop apps onto Linux and the Mac, and that nets you 1 million return in greater users and so ad revenue. Or maybe you could spend that 500,000 on a new project that gets 4 million return in revenue.
Meaning the networks are better at deciding what content the masses want rather then the masses is rediculous! It may be true in the sense that the networks are the only ones who can control the distribution of said content, good or otherwise.
I don't think that is what it means. I think what it means is the networks are better at making content. This is because they have money and employ lots of people who make TV professionally. Doesn't mean it is all good, but it has a better chance of being something people will want to watch that something made my Joe Random Person.
I also don't think "the masses" will ever be making TV. Few will have the inclination, skills and drive. It takes far more to be an active producer of content than an active consumer.
If one thing the internee has done is lower the bar for people to get their creative works out to people.
If Sturgeon's Law of 90% of everything is crap was true before, as you lower the bar the percentage of crap goes up and finding the good stuff harder.
I can't help but think TV like this will suffer the same problems, but made worse that it requires more technical skills and money (or at least access to equipment) than say writing or making music. Look at public access TV and fan films.
This is as likely to kill TV as internee fan fiction is to kill books. That doesn't make this a bad project, I'm sure people will have fun making and watching stuff, but it isn't a replacement for commercial TV.
I think it was a pretty cruddy article, but I also think you missed something.
Also wrong. There are distros that are like that, but there are distros that aren't. Linux offers choice, and not just the "bag of Legos" kind.
I think that was the point actually. You can't just take a program written for Linux, put it on a Linux server, or all the Linux servers in your organisation and expect it to run.
As for WINE, if it gets to the day it's as easy to install and runs stuff with WINE as Windows you are right, users won't care. I'm sceptical it will ever get there though, as Windows is something of a moving target, looks like Longhorn will introduce a bunch of new APIs, and most of the stuff will be made available for XP.
Automation puts people out of work, hell if you are unemployed you don't work any days per week. Not that I'm saying automation is bad, but if you want stuff, you need to work for it. If automation put you out, you change careers.
Maybe they think that their patents would stand up well to reivew, but rivals would not. So examination of patents and the system would actually leave them with a bigger relative advantage in terms of the patents they hold.
I'm beginning to fear the impending rise of Japan's technological skills.
The impending rise? Where have you been for the last few decades? As a country their technological skills and drive have been cutting edge for a long time now.
With their recent attempt to amend their constitution to allow for a standing army
If my country was that close the North Korea and China I'd really want it to have a standing army too. I guess they could rely on the Americans for ever, but they have a lot of other commitments and what if you don't always agree with them?
changes to their textbooks that make their actions during WW2 seem honorable instead of atrocious
Now that's a massive generalisation, assuming you are talking about the same thing as the Chinese have been protesting about. A textbook, not all, done by a company not the government referred to the rape of Nanking as an "incident". Now that isn't good, it was a massacre and a war crime, but you may be generalising just a bit from it.
But wouldn't the BEST way to help disabled people would be to research stem cells and how to regenerate nerves and muscles
It would be another way. We don't know it would be the best way until we tried both. Even then, best how? Cost? How quickly it is available? Quality of life for sufferers? Percentage of sufferers it works for?
It's pretty rare with medical conditions that one treatment works for everyone. Researching multiple ways to deal with it is generally a good thing, that saying about all you eggs in one basket.
Yes, exos could have military applications, (a lot of tech can, if it can it usually gets used) the US army has already said it is interested, and researching. Given their military budget they would almost certainly be the first to use such technology if it becomes practical.
An exoskeleton isn't a mecha, and doesn't have to be nearly that big. From a military point of view everything has limitations. Tanks are great in open country, but not so good in built up areas. If exoskeletons have a militray application it would more likely be urban areas and rough terrain where their greater mobility would be an asset.
Funny that we barely have the technology to build them now but could build them in WWII.
So the choice was, go with proprietary software that does what you want or... do what exactly? There wasn't any open source software that filled the need.
If Linus' assement about the impact it has had on his productivity is right, if he had chose open source software that didn't fit his needs, the Linux kernel wouldn't be as far along now as it is.
Even having to abandon it now, that extra productivity isn't lost, and the kernel is more developed that it would have been.
Pragmatically it doesn't seem like a bad choice, plus it may have helped spur on some more development on open source alternatives.
removed much of the stimulus to create really first-class open source source control programs
Seems to me a lot like the opposite happened. All the people objecting to the use of non-free software by Linus has encouraged adding BitKeeper like features to open source alternatives.
If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper.
Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen.
So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice.
It is important to other people working on the kernel though.
So what, we shouldn't look at trying to cure people going blind because it might lead to people wanting to improve their bodies?
I don't really see a problem with any of the things you mention, unless it leads to health risks or people without them being descriminated against. If people want better bodies, or smarted, healthier children, I don't see an issue with that in itself.
It isn't supposed to, from the blog comments it looks like the whitelist stuff isn't working properly yet.
When it does (and I assume it won't go into FireFox until this is fixes) it will be like the normal pop-up blocker and allow through the ones the user wants.
What would more diverse ranks be in this case? Using lots of different browsers, that impliment JavaScript in different incompatible ways?
I thought in the US ISPs and people who host sites were only obliged to take down copyright material when informed about it, not police it themseleves.
As long as Google acts when informed about violations, they should be fine, just like and web hosting company.
Everything is simple at the fundamental level
No it isn't.
Go study some quantum mechanics and you find that as you try to get to the fundamental levels of matter, the thing that make up everything else, it isn't simple at all. It's strangle, complex and very counter intuitive.
Just because you want to apply a human idea (fundamental level is simple) to the universe doesn't meant it will oblige you. Our brains are geared to thinking a certain way based on the experience of the world around us, things like cause and effect. As we try and peer in the fundamental ways of the universe it seems it works in very different ways, and consequently we don't find it simple at all.
There isn't any simpler way but some people can wrap their head around it, and come up with the theories, and use them successfully to predict things. I'm not sure what other possible definition of "real understanding" you have.
Unless you believe the universe is really made for our benefit, there is no reason to believe it can be resolved into something we find simple. We may lack the maths or science to express parts of it, or the cognitive ability to even envisage some of the ways it works.
You are caught up in semantics and circular reasoning here.
Fundamental != Simple
Fundamental, in this context (fundamental laws of the universe) just means the foundation or base. Just because you can't break them down more doesn't mean it is simple, or humans can understand it, or laypeople can understand it.
If there is one unified theory of everything, it would be the most fundamental one, from which everything derives, but it could be mathematically and conceptually very complex indeed.
Theories predicting more are often more complex. For example, Newton's laws of motion are quite simple to understand, and the maths is simple. However, they are limited in scope. Relativity covers more, is more "fundamental" to understanding how the universe works, but is much more complex.
If I understand Newton's Laws (and there limitations) but not GR and SR, I'm clearly not as clueless as someong who doesn't know them. Nobody knows a general theory of everything, yet some people are much more clued up on science than others.
Complex theories don't mean the people involved don't understand. They often just mean as best we understand it, parts of reality are pretty damn complex. The real test is if these theories offer predictive abilities. If experimentation hold up the theory it is hard to dismiss the originators as "clueless".
If you work in a specialised area of science then you think in those specialise terms all the time. You don't need to translate it into something simple because you (and your peers) know exactly what you are talking about, and any simplification would loose details.
To take something complex, turn it into something relatively simple and loose as little as possible as a different and rare skill. This is why scientific geniuses and good science TV presenters tend not to overlap much. One comes up with complex theories, another can explain complex theories to the lay person. Doesn't mean the first doesn't know what they are talking about.
It may irk you that some very smart people know and understand stuff you don't, that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
I get an object cannot accelerate past the speed of light. I get an object cannot reach escape velocity for a black hole.
However, my point is you don't need to reach escape velocity to escape from an object's gravity, escape velocity is for unpowered objects, objects exerting their own force don't need to reach escape velocity.
The fact it is under it's own power is entirely relevant, becuase if it is escape velocity doesn't apply, escape velocity applies when the only factors are the object escaping's speed and the gravity field it is escaping from.
So, if I want to leave a planet by, say, firing out a gun, I need to be travelling at escape velocity (assuming no atmosphere). However, in a rocket I just need to excert more force in thrust that the planet's gravity does on my rocket. If I do this I can leave without ever reaching escape velocity.
Now, since I can leave a gravity field without ever reaching escape velocity, why can't I get out from the even horizon behind a black hole without even reaching escape velocity? (Ignoring the gravity, tidal forces, blueshift, time dilation etc that would kill me).
I assume there is a reason, just curious what it would be.