And everyone will freak out and start wearing all natural fiber clothing (except the Japanese).
Yea, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Most people don't have a real rational sense of danger and risk...People in Montana terrified of terrorists, even though you're more likely to die of a lightning strike. Far better to have a giant coal-fired power plant spewing mercury and radiation into your neighborhood than have a relatively clean nuke plant doing less damage for more energy. Yadda yadda.
Scientists are more worried about a lot of things than the general public. This is not because scientists are worriers, but because the general public is hopelessly ignorant about a lot of things.
I see all this crap about how bad reporters are at science reporting...This is mainly from people who never have to watch their work be dumbed down over the course of days to the point where joe six pack can get some glimmer of meaning from it. Trying to convey anything scientific to the masses is extremely difficult.
The truth of it is, the public, by and large, just doesn't care. They don't want to know. They don't want to make the effort. And if you succeed in enlightening them as to the dangers, then it's all too likely they'll panic and refuse to use anything even close to it, as was the case with nuclear energy.
I'm saying that the "no crash" magic that worked in ep3, was disinvented before ep6. It's not about hard science, okay, this is star wars, but it should at least make sense within itself.
I won't pretend to be an expert, but I don't see how passive observation using the naked eye is any more likely to screw up the universe than passive observation using any number of more scientific methods. If so, just by existing we would cause all the same problems.
Either way, what it really depends on is whether we're inside or outside of the box. If we're outside the box we may cause the events to collapse by observation, but if we're inside the box, then we're fine...As long as the universe doesn't open the box, in which case we're either fine or dead or both.
Yea, I've had that thought as well...Have him turn in ep2, and have ep3 be an all out war between the Jedi and the Sith, with Vader picking up a major role.
I've seen people bang around ideas for how the films should have gone since the night at the bar after seeing ep1 in the theatre on opening night, and sadly, I think a lot of 'em really would have been better. Other secondary characters, different starting points, etc. Really reinforces my belief that Lucas didn't allow anyone else to comment on his holy script. Terrible.
I definitely thought they were "looking for" a character to take up that role. Seemed like they tried to force Anakin into it, somewhat...He certainly got too many one-liners for a jedi. They did play them all as staid, but not understated just stodgy.
I think, in retrospect, it really was mostly about Han in the previous movies. He was what you wanted to see. There was hardly anything else going on. I mean, what's the best part of the ending of EpIV? Luke hitting the exhaust port, or Han flying out of the sun and kicking imperial ass?
Well that, and they're poorly written. And poorly directed. And the plots full of holes. And the CG is overly gratuitous. And otherwise great actors forgot how to act as soon as they got on the set.
Actually no. I mean, Jesus, this is Star Wars. Did anyone not know Luke was going to blow up the Death Star? Seriously. It's the how that made it cool. The how is always what makes it cool, or, alternatively, makes it suck, like Episodes 1-3 sucked.
Meh. I think a lot of fans were willing to wallow in Anakin's descent into evil, and were cheated when he basically flipped without much turmoil or persuasion.
I'll agree with you that there is less of a market for that sort of film, but that's no excuse for setting out to make one, and making a piece of crap. The whole second series had the emotional range of a turnip...If it hadn't been for Ewan MacGregor, it wouldn't have even rated turnip.
Heh. Am I the only one that remembers a rather large Super Stardestroyer with (relatively minor damage) crash into a half-completed Death Star?
I know it's crap science. But there are limits. They just went in for some good old fashioned hollywood masturbation there, and it annoyed the crap out of me. Clearly, as a viewer, I'm soooo gullible that they don't even have to make an effort.
Yea, I'd have been fine with that...Would have made for some excellent drama between him and Padme if he'd turned over time, not just over the course of like 10 minutes. Would have also been cooler for there to be an actual standup fight against the Jedi as well, but since they're near-omnipotent, they'll all have to be simultaneously taken by surprise.
Yea, he basically went through and stripped all the real flaws from his characters, which makes them about as bland and uninteresting as it is possible to be.
I could have bought that if they'd gone into it at all. Brought the emergency generators online to get some power back (because logically the main power generation would have been back near the engines), fire up the repulsors, adjust the anti-gravity, etc...But not just grabbing the stick and swinging her in for a landing on the landing strip, mind you.
I just couldn't buy it. Like the "fighting-on-lava" scene. W. T. F?
Well, I'd say good compared to I and II, but not on any reasonable scale.
The only thing that made 1 worth watching were isolated instances of Jedi whoopass. You could cut the whole rest of the movie, and it wouldn't make any difference.
II...Jesus Christ, II was a disaster. Worst dialog of the whole series, the supposed building of a love interest was horrible...No chemistry AND no dialog? Come on! It was all weak sauce. Even the jedi-whoopass wasn't all that great. The Yoda-ninja scene was amusing, but it didn't add any gravitas to the character.
III...Well, three had better dialog than II, and less Jar Jar than I. Anakin was more bearable as evil, but the crappy dialog that brought him to that point...Sheesh. Wouldn't have taken much more than a pamphlet to bring him back over to the right side, if that's how strong his convictions are. Tons of seriously implausible crap though. The "Sea of Lava" saber fight at the end was pretty much beyond my tolerance...Jedi are flame retardant now? What are they breathing? Anakin can catch fire on the edge of the lava later, but not while standing on a METAL droid that's half submerged in it? I sprained my suspension of disbelief, but even so I still thought it was the best of the 3.
Yea, that pretty much killed it for me all the way through. I thought Ep1 could have been salvaged by removing JarJar and turning Anakin from a "gee whiz!" 9 year old, to a "gee whiz (sarcasm)" 13 year old...think about it...Every one of his lines delivered exactly the same, but with sarcasm. Mmmm.
Anakin is played so shallowly in every single episode...I don't even blame the actor, because he clearly didn't have much say in it. Give the poor bastard a flaw or something, make him turn for greed or to get the girl, something with real motivation, not this saintly crap which just doesn't fly...
No. Not "A starship"...HALF a starship, the half without the engines, iirc, which is somehow capable of navigating without the engines, staying in the air without wings, and not hitting the ground at terminal velocity.
I don't buy it. I'm sorry, but they introduce nothing plausible that would justify that, and yea, sure, it's fiction, but even fiction has to be internally consistent.
Jar-Jar and Midi-chorlians were just a symptom of the underlying disease. He only directed one of the first three movies (IV, V, & VI), and in that one, there were people who felt like they could challenge him when the dialogue was crap...Harrison Ford was famous for it, and I doubt very seriously that Alec Guiness would have spouted some of the tripe that came later. Other directors on the other movies made the whole thing more palatable.
Fast forward to the second set (I,II,III) and you see that not only does he feel that he is capable of directing all three movies now (ha!) but no one dares to dispute his character or dialogue choices and unnecesarry plot wankings...Things thrown in just as an excuse for visual effects masturbation. If there had been anyone who felt like they could stand up to him, I can't imagine some of the horrible bad calls (like the dialog of the whole of episode II) would have gone through.
Episode III was by far the best of the new set, but I wouldn't call it great by any stretch. The movie fricking starts with them landing half a fricking starship on a landing strip, rather than, you know, in a giant self-made crater. I know it's sci-fi, but come on. I'd have bought one of them levitating them to the ground using the Force (which doesn't make a ton of sense), but not a fricking crash landing.
In short, the whole mess had potential, but the dialog was terrible, and the actors looked uncomfortable, and there was waaaaaaaay too much "Hey this would look cool!" without a thought to what it meant for the plot.
That's three times as many as it ought to take, so no. If I wrote a piece of code that was supposed to run in the background and provide some service, every click beyond what was strictly necessary for it to do it's thing would be considered a flaw.
Jesus. You could take that same argument and apply it to Windows...You just need to restart it every day, no big deal. Just hit three keys, and then return, that's all. I don't know why you have a problem with that.
The AC is correct. If he were presenting original research, then yes, it would be suspicious that he lacks credentials. That is not what he's doing. He is taking existing research, compiling it, and drawing a conclusion supported by other people's data.
If the conclusion agrees with the data, and the data sound, then his conclusion must be sound. It has no bearing at all on his conclusion that he's not a scientist.
I'm trying to come up with a way to respond that doesn't belittle you, because frankly that was a terrible response.
Your suggestion is a workaround. It does not address the actual problem. Despite the fact that "there is no reason" to leave a program running, which is certainly debatable, the simple truth is that even under abnormal operation, a quality piece of code should not dramatically increase its memory footprint to the point of causing system stability issues.
The most annoying thing about the OSS zealot is the refusal to admit room for improvement. The grandparent didn't say anything about people not using Firefox, only that the memory issue is a problem, which it is. But to you, that means he (and probably I) are paid microsoft schills out to destroy firefox...Why else would we point to a problem that accounts for almost all the complaints against firefox?
I use Firefox. I use it everyday. I use it for about 95% of my web browsing. This doesn't mean it doesn't have problems that I would like to see solved, first and foremost among them the goddamn memory issue, whether it's cache, fragmentation, leaks, whatever. It's a real pain in the ass have your computer take 20 extra seconds to wake up from sleep because the damn webbrowser has eaten about 30% of the system memory.
But instead of addressing this, you throw a strawman, and a nice little ad hominem, and refuse to address the actual complaint.
Not at all. If I argued that some societal factor increased the numbers of children on welfare, and no such increase actually exists in the world, then surely my conclusion must be false, correct?
If I argued that games decreased violent crime based on the fact that violent crime has decreased over the last ten years or so, I'd be falling into the trap you're accusing me of falling into...That decrease could have been caused by anything, and there is absolutely nothing to relate it to gaming.
However, for them to suggest quite blatantly that gamers are far more violent than non-gamers...That runs afoul of the fact that there is none of the increase in violent crime that must follow an increase in violent behaviour among one of the most violent demographics...Men aged 16 to 30. According to the DoJ, the percentage of violent crimes perpetrated by minors has dropped 61% in the period between 1993 and 2005.
How can that possibly correlate with what they're describing as a near universal phenomenon? There are a lot of gamers out there, far too many for there not to be a significant upswing if games really fed the violent tendencies as this research claims they do.
Either way it's all about Correlation != Causation.
My argument against games making people more violent would be more historical. Lot's of things have, historically, been said to make people more violent, and this tends not to bear out in the real world. Marijuana was once thought to induce psychosis and violent behavior, and while we may or may not agree on whether or not marijuana ought to be legal, most people do acknowledge that it doesn't exactly make you violent. The same arguments were applied to movies, rock music, sports events, and comic books...Anything that might make the kids into ravening monsters. It just tends not to happen.
On top of that, there has been no increase in violence since the advent of truly violent gaming. It's pretty widespread now, so you'd think that any actual upswing in violence would stand out against the preceding decades, but there isn't anything like that in the data.
I don't think it's a strawman so much...May be a little off topic, but as far as I'm concerned violent games/violent movies/violent books/etc are all of a piece, so it's acceptable to call into question the whole concept of non-interaction.
My gut feeling, is that violent games reduce violence in society by providing a safety valve. I doubt that is as significant, however, as the fact that most people aren't all that prone to violence in the first place. We're less and less the sort of society where going out and getting into a scrap in a bar is acceptable, and as that sort of culture fades, so does the violent crime that goes with it.
I think there must be some effect; goes without saying that if you spend hours/weeks/years of your life doing something, it must have an effect, right? On the other hand, if your mind is so weak to be converted by Veggie Tales, you've got problems (as an aside, I think raising a kid with no religious experience is a good way to get a born again kid in later life...they won't have any background to reject it).
I go to church with my wife and kid, because it's important to her, and hell, I was raised religious and the only thing it did for me was make me less patient with the whole nonsense. Sit through the sermons every Sunday, and what does it do for me? Nothing. I have no more desire to do the religious thing now than I did on day 1.
So I'm not saying there is no effect, I just don't think the effect is what they think it is. I learned aggression from video games...Because just sitting around will get you shot. That doesn't make me go out and shoot people, but it does make me more forward, and more conscious of opportunity.
A game may refine what's already there, or give you an idea your mind was already receptive to, but I don't think it creates anything out of whole cloth. Humanity is a violent species...Seeing an increase in some types of aggression when they're doing aggressive things with a large portion of their time seems normal...The fact that it doesn't really translate to anything other than a blip on a survey suggests to me that the new aggression is significantly weaker than their social conditioning, and therefore, not much to worry about.
Shrug. Sorry you feel that way. This particular topic evokes bad memories for me, however, and frankly, I've made this exact same argument a thousand times, and no one ever listens. So why not be profane?
It feels profane to me; all these people irrationally insisting that only a moron would ever use Windows, and ignoring the perfectly valid reasons those people have for using Windows...They fail to appreciate those things that we could legitimately learn/steal from Microsoft. It's kind of pathetic actually.
Slashdot Mirror
And everyone will freak out and start wearing all natural fiber clothing (except the Japanese).
Yea, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Most people don't have a real rational sense of danger and risk...People in Montana terrified of terrorists, even though you're more likely to die of a lightning strike. Far better to have a giant coal-fired power plant spewing mercury and radiation into your neighborhood than have a relatively clean nuke plant doing less damage for more energy. Yadda yadda.
Scientists are more worried about a lot of things than the general public. This is not because scientists are worriers, but because the general public is hopelessly ignorant about a lot of things.
I see all this crap about how bad reporters are at science reporting...This is mainly from people who never have to watch their work be dumbed down over the course of days to the point where joe six pack can get some glimmer of meaning from it. Trying to convey anything scientific to the masses is extremely difficult.
The truth of it is, the public, by and large, just doesn't care. They don't want to know. They don't want to make the effort. And if you succeed in enlightening them as to the dangers, then it's all too likely they'll panic and refuse to use anything even close to it, as was the case with nuclear energy.
I'm saying that the "no crash" magic that worked in ep3, was disinvented before ep6. It's not about hard science, okay, this is star wars, but it should at least make sense within itself.
I won't pretend to be an expert, but I don't see how passive observation using the naked eye is any more likely to screw up the universe than passive observation using any number of more scientific methods. If so, just by existing we would cause all the same problems.
Either way, what it really depends on is whether we're inside or outside of the box. If we're outside the box we may cause the events to collapse by observation, but if we're inside the box, then we're fine...As long as the universe doesn't open the box, in which case we're either fine or dead or both.
Yea, I've had that thought as well...Have him turn in ep2, and have ep3 be an all out war between the Jedi and the Sith, with Vader picking up a major role.
I've seen people bang around ideas for how the films should have gone since the night at the bar after seeing ep1 in the theatre on opening night, and sadly, I think a lot of 'em really would have been better. Other secondary characters, different starting points, etc. Really reinforces my belief that Lucas didn't allow anyone else to comment on his holy script. Terrible.
I definitely thought they were "looking for" a character to take up that role. Seemed like they tried to force Anakin into it, somewhat...He certainly got too many one-liners for a jedi. They did play them all as staid, but not understated just stodgy.
I think, in retrospect, it really was mostly about Han in the previous movies. He was what you wanted to see. There was hardly anything else going on. I mean, what's the best part of the ending of EpIV? Luke hitting the exhaust port, or Han flying out of the sun and kicking imperial ass?
Meh. Everyone acted like crap in those movies. I don't blame him. I expected more out of nearly everyone, and I never got it.
Well that, and they're poorly written. And poorly directed. And the plots full of holes. And the CG is overly gratuitous. And otherwise great actors forgot how to act as soon as they got on the set.
Actually no. I mean, Jesus, this is Star Wars. Did anyone not know Luke was going to blow up the Death Star? Seriously. It's the how that made it cool. The how is always what makes it cool, or, alternatively, makes it suck, like Episodes 1-3 sucked.
Meh. I think a lot of fans were willing to wallow in Anakin's descent into evil, and were cheated when he basically flipped without much turmoil or persuasion.
I'll agree with you that there is less of a market for that sort of film, but that's no excuse for setting out to make one, and making a piece of crap. The whole second series had the emotional range of a turnip...If it hadn't been for Ewan MacGregor, it wouldn't have even rated turnip.
Heh. Am I the only one that remembers a rather large Super Stardestroyer with (relatively minor damage) crash into a half-completed Death Star?
I know it's crap science. But there are limits. They just went in for some good old fashioned hollywood masturbation there, and it annoyed the crap out of me. Clearly, as a viewer, I'm soooo gullible that they don't even have to make an effort.
Yea, I'd have been fine with that...Would have made for some excellent drama between him and Padme if he'd turned over time, not just over the course of like 10 minutes. Would have also been cooler for there to be an actual standup fight against the Jedi as well, but since they're near-omnipotent, they'll all have to be simultaneously taken by surprise.
Yea, he basically went through and stripped all the real flaws from his characters, which makes them about as bland and uninteresting as it is possible to be.
I could have bought that if they'd gone into it at all. Brought the emergency generators online to get some power back (because logically the main power generation would have been back near the engines), fire up the repulsors, adjust the anti-gravity, etc...But not just grabbing the stick and swinging her in for a landing on the landing strip, mind you.
I just couldn't buy it. Like the "fighting-on-lava" scene. W. T. F?
Well, I'd say good compared to I and II, but not on any reasonable scale.
The only thing that made 1 worth watching were isolated instances of Jedi whoopass. You could cut the whole rest of the movie, and it wouldn't make any difference.
II...Jesus Christ, II was a disaster. Worst dialog of the whole series, the supposed building of a love interest was horrible...No chemistry AND no dialog? Come on! It was all weak sauce. Even the jedi-whoopass wasn't all that great. The Yoda-ninja scene was amusing, but it didn't add any gravitas to the character.
III...Well, three had better dialog than II, and less Jar Jar than I. Anakin was more bearable as evil, but the crappy dialog that brought him to that point...Sheesh. Wouldn't have taken much more than a pamphlet to bring him back over to the right side, if that's how strong his convictions are. Tons of seriously implausible crap though. The "Sea of Lava" saber fight at the end was pretty much beyond my tolerance...Jedi are flame retardant now? What are they breathing? Anakin can catch fire on the edge of the lava later, but not while standing on a METAL droid that's half submerged in it? I sprained my suspension of disbelief, but even so I still thought it was the best of the 3.
Yea, that pretty much killed it for me all the way through. I thought Ep1 could have been salvaged by removing JarJar and turning Anakin from a "gee whiz!" 9 year old, to a "gee whiz (sarcasm)" 13 year old...think about it...Every one of his lines delivered exactly the same, but with sarcasm. Mmmm.
Anakin is played so shallowly in every single episode...I don't even blame the actor, because he clearly didn't have much say in it. Give the poor bastard a flaw or something, make him turn for greed or to get the girl, something with real motivation, not this saintly crap which just doesn't fly...
No. Not "A starship"...HALF a starship, the half without the engines, iirc, which is somehow capable of navigating without the engines, staying in the air without wings, and not hitting the ground at terminal velocity.
I don't buy it. I'm sorry, but they introduce nothing plausible that would justify that, and yea, sure, it's fiction, but even fiction has to be internally consistent.
Jar-Jar and Midi-chorlians were just a symptom of the underlying disease. He only directed one of the first three movies (IV, V, & VI), and in that one, there were people who felt like they could challenge him when the dialogue was crap...Harrison Ford was famous for it, and I doubt very seriously that Alec Guiness would have spouted some of the tripe that came later. Other directors on the other movies made the whole thing more palatable.
Fast forward to the second set (I,II,III) and you see that not only does he feel that he is capable of directing all three movies now (ha!) but no one dares to dispute his character or dialogue choices and unnecesarry plot wankings...Things thrown in just as an excuse for visual effects masturbation. If there had been anyone who felt like they could stand up to him, I can't imagine some of the horrible bad calls (like the dialog of the whole of episode II) would have gone through.
Episode III was by far the best of the new set, but I wouldn't call it great by any stretch. The movie fricking starts with them landing half a fricking starship on a landing strip, rather than, you know, in a giant self-made crater. I know it's sci-fi, but come on. I'd have bought one of them levitating them to the ground using the Force (which doesn't make a ton of sense), but not a fricking crash landing.
In short, the whole mess had potential, but the dialog was terrible, and the actors looked uncomfortable, and there was waaaaaaaay too much "Hey this would look cool!" without a thought to what it meant for the plot.
That's three times as many as it ought to take, so no. If I wrote a piece of code that was supposed to run in the background and provide some service, every click beyond what was strictly necessary for it to do it's thing would be considered a flaw.
Jesus. You could take that same argument and apply it to Windows...You just need to restart it every day, no big deal. Just hit three keys, and then return, that's all. I don't know why you have a problem with that.
The AC is correct. If he were presenting original research, then yes, it would be suspicious that he lacks credentials. That is not what he's doing. He is taking existing research, compiling it, and drawing a conclusion supported by other people's data.
If the conclusion agrees with the data, and the data sound, then his conclusion must be sound. It has no bearing at all on his conclusion that he's not a scientist.
I'm trying to come up with a way to respond that doesn't belittle you, because frankly that was a terrible response.
Your suggestion is a workaround. It does not address the actual problem. Despite the fact that "there is no reason" to leave a program running, which is certainly debatable, the simple truth is that even under abnormal operation, a quality piece of code should not dramatically increase its memory footprint to the point of causing system stability issues.
The most annoying thing about the OSS zealot is the refusal to admit room for improvement. The grandparent didn't say anything about people not using Firefox, only that the memory issue is a problem, which it is. But to you, that means he (and probably I) are paid microsoft schills out to destroy firefox...Why else would we point to a problem that accounts for almost all the complaints against firefox?
I use Firefox. I use it everyday. I use it for about 95% of my web browsing. This doesn't mean it doesn't have problems that I would like to see solved, first and foremost among them the goddamn memory issue, whether it's cache, fragmentation, leaks, whatever. It's a real pain in the ass have your computer take 20 extra seconds to wake up from sleep because the damn webbrowser has eaten about 30% of the system memory.
But instead of addressing this, you throw a strawman, and a nice little ad hominem, and refuse to address the actual complaint.
Not at all. If I argued that some societal factor increased the numbers of children on welfare, and no such increase actually exists in the world, then surely my conclusion must be false, correct?
If I argued that games decreased violent crime based on the fact that violent crime has decreased over the last ten years or so, I'd be falling into the trap you're accusing me of falling into...That decrease could have been caused by anything, and there is absolutely nothing to relate it to gaming.
However, for them to suggest quite blatantly that gamers are far more violent than non-gamers...That runs afoul of the fact that there is none of the increase in violent crime that must follow an increase in violent behaviour among one of the most violent demographics...Men aged 16 to 30. According to the DoJ, the percentage of violent crimes perpetrated by minors has dropped 61% in the period between 1993 and 2005.
How can that possibly correlate with what they're describing as a near universal phenomenon? There are a lot of gamers out there, far too many for there not to be a significant upswing if games really fed the violent tendencies as this research claims they do.
Either way it's all about Correlation != Causation.
My argument against games making people more violent would be more historical. Lot's of things have, historically, been said to make people more violent, and this tends not to bear out in the real world. Marijuana was once thought to induce psychosis and violent behavior, and while we may or may not agree on whether or not marijuana ought to be legal, most people do acknowledge that it doesn't exactly make you violent. The same arguments were applied to movies, rock music, sports events, and comic books...Anything that might make the kids into ravening monsters. It just tends not to happen.
On top of that, there has been no increase in violence since the advent of truly violent gaming. It's pretty widespread now, so you'd think that any actual upswing in violence would stand out against the preceding decades, but there isn't anything like that in the data.
I don't think it's a strawman so much...May be a little off topic, but as far as I'm concerned violent games/violent movies/violent books/etc are all of a piece, so it's acceptable to call into question the whole concept of non-interaction.
My gut feeling, is that violent games reduce violence in society by providing a safety valve. I doubt that is as significant, however, as the fact that most people aren't all that prone to violence in the first place. We're less and less the sort of society where going out and getting into a scrap in a bar is acceptable, and as that sort of culture fades, so does the violent crime that goes with it.
I think there must be some effect; goes without saying that if you spend hours/weeks/years of your life doing something, it must have an effect, right? On the other hand, if your mind is so weak to be converted by Veggie Tales, you've got problems (as an aside, I think raising a kid with no religious experience is a good way to get a born again kid in later life...they won't have any background to reject it).
I go to church with my wife and kid, because it's important to her, and hell, I was raised religious and the only thing it did for me was make me less patient with the whole nonsense. Sit through the sermons every Sunday, and what does it do for me? Nothing. I have no more desire to do the religious thing now than I did on day 1.
So I'm not saying there is no effect, I just don't think the effect is what they think it is. I learned aggression from video games...Because just sitting around will get you shot. That doesn't make me go out and shoot people, but it does make me more forward, and more conscious of opportunity.
A game may refine what's already there, or give you an idea your mind was already receptive to, but I don't think it creates anything out of whole cloth. Humanity is a violent species...Seeing an increase in some types of aggression when they're doing aggressive things with a large portion of their time seems normal...The fact that it doesn't really translate to anything other than a blip on a survey suggests to me that the new aggression is significantly weaker than their social conditioning, and therefore, not much to worry about.
Shrug. Sorry you feel that way. This particular topic evokes bad memories for me, however, and frankly, I've made this exact same argument a thousand times, and no one ever listens. So why not be profane?
It feels profane to me; all these people irrationally insisting that only a moron would ever use Windows, and ignoring the perfectly valid reasons those people have for using Windows...They fail to appreciate those things that we could legitimately learn/steal from Microsoft. It's kind of pathetic actually.
C'est la vie.