Further discussion is an exercise in mental masturbation. You're not really listening to the things I'm saying -- a very simple concept which accurately and fully answered your "challenges". Instead, you're reduced to playing the semantics game. The fact is, if you believe in a God and/or afterlife, it is best to live by "the golden rule" because there is a very good chance that this is what you're religion requires of you. If you are an atheist, a strong logical argument can be made for any creature capable of empathy to do the same.
Enlightened self-interest, of course. "I will take from this person because as a thinking, feeling individual I am aware that I would not wish this person to take from me." Theology need not enter into it.
The observation that aspects of living forms seem to be too complex, or fit together in too coordinated a way to come about as proscribed by the leading theory, is a valid argument for a science Eh? Since when is an opinion a valid argument for science?
Looking back, it may have been naive of me to respond to what may have been a troll. It was a pretty good troll, if so, because it just didn't seem like a troll. However, of you, Grayskull, I'm curious, are you also a prick to people that are naive or that bore you, in real life? Honesty often has the effect of making people think you're a prick. I only tend to be that blunt about it when I reach a tipping point of frustrating from reading the tired arguments all the time.
What you said:
If I could refocus Linux Development... I would try to pool all the development into 1 distro to reduce duplication of so much effort.
Linux is about choice. If Linux distros were combined into a one size fits all environment, guess what would happen? It would fork, because there would be people that didn't like it. Combining the distros is an idea that would never get off the ground. The users just wouldn't stand for it.
What I heard: blah blah duplicated effort. blah blah choice.
Both sides of this tired old discussion have merit or else it wouldn't still be around after so many years. So please find something that's not a waste of time and energy to debate -- unless either of you honestly thinks you're going to change somebody's mind...
I know, I know, I'm gonna take a flamebait hit for this. I just wonder if people didn't spend all this time having the same pointless circular arguments, maybe there really/could/ be a refocus on common ground. In the words of Somebody Famous, "Can't we all just get along?"
Aw, c'mon. That last didn't even hold merit as a bad pun.
Having corrected your commas twice now, perhaps this discussion can be concluded? Well damnit, now that you point it out... I plead 4:00am bleariness.
It's good to see that you're conveniently ignoring your glaringly obvious spelling mistake. Since you have yet to provide a valid correction of your own, there's no further pleasure to be held in this conversation. We'll end it here.
Errrr, spelling is not grammar. Look more closely. Read it again and pay closer attention to the full exchange this time. You'll see that I made no claim of grammar having anything to do with spelling.
Your sentance needs a comma. The comma there is optional, depending on the desired emphasis. On the other hand, correct spelling of the word sentence is not optional. Shall we play some more?
Remember the part where we just discussed PS & PS2 not using OpenGL?
The playstation does use openGL. I'm afrad that this is just mistaken. Playstation and PLaystation 2 did not use OpenGL, they used a proprietary interface. PS2 used a platform called Graphics Synthesizer by SOny; I am not sure what PS1 used, but I have been unable to find any evidence that it was opengl.
The playstation 3 uses OpenGL ES which is the openGL standard for Embedded Accelerated 3D Graphics. Its not proprietary. Good to know. At the time that Sony decided to use it, it was not a standard; they pushed to make it so, and it appears they were successful; thisi is a good thing. Please note that nowhere did I say PS3 did not use OpenGL. I was specifically referring to the PS and PS2, which still has a much larger installed based than PS3.
All of which goes to say that my original point remains correct. There is at present a larger potential market for modern DirectX games than for OpenGL.
Okay, what do they use then? Umm... proprietary platforms. Seems rather self-evident, doesn't it? But don't take my word for it, you're just as capable of searching for this info as I am.
No. The sum of the Xbox and Xbox 360 is a plurality of consoles, but not a majority (even only counting recent ones -- PS2s and 3s, Gamecubes, and Wiis). In fact, according to this (scroll to the end), the Xbox and 360 have together sold about 20 million units, compared to the PS2's almost 40 million (as of April 2007).
Remember the part where we just discussed PS & PS2 not using OpenGL? Your numbers essentially just made my point. OpenGL as it stands today == PC market. XBox == PC market + 40 million additional consoles. Therefore, my point remains valid -- there is at present a significantly larger market for DirectX than for OpenGL.
I don't see how so; google doesn't provide information about the businesses (ie, customer reviews and feedback), only location information. Since it seems that your site seems focused on telling people/about/ the business rather than simply where they are, I don't see why this would even be considered in competition?
Oh yeah? Then what about ports to Playstations and Wiis? I'm not a console developer, but I'll bet those use OpenGL (and they certainly don't use DirectX)!
Playstation II is not OpenGL. Wii is not OpenGL. My understanding is that playstation III supports a dialect of opengl, which is not yet formally standardized.
The simple fact is that using DirectX gives you access to the largest marketshare - the vast majority of PC desktops, AND a lesser majority of consoles. I don't say I like this, but it is what it is; the gaming industry is like any other, and it's all about profits. Not the individual developers, but the companies who back them. And those companies will tend to push the products in the direction they see the most opportunity. Unfortunately, at the moment that is DirectX.
I've always wondered about this. It seems that the single biggest problem with porting Windows games to Mac or Linux is lack of DirectX support, so why do developers even use this broken technology to begin with instead of OpenGL? Is it easier to program for? Presumably Windows also supports OpenGL so why not make games that are easily ported like id does? The biggest reason I have seen is to keep the option open for a port to XBox, which is -- unfortunately -- a much bigger market than Linux/Mac gaming.
Interesting, it never occurred to me that an opinion could be wrong... I realize that I stated it matter-of-factly but it's still of course only an opinion.
The store tried to get the card back, but was told tough cookies, you are responsible for the transaction, and once the customer is out the door, too damn bad. Generally speaking, law and "right" are two different things. For a starting point on some interesting reading, the Jurisprudence/a> article on wikipedia is pretty good.
I would be more sympathetic to your argument if these multibillion dollar institutions were held to the same standard you are proposing for the little guy. So it's OK for the little guy to do it, simply because the large institutions can do it? I suppose I'm in the minority, but I always felt that stealing was stealing; and it was wrong no matter who did it.
Did you miss the part where I said:
It's still not your money, no matter whose fault it is ?
If you make the effort to return it, that's one thing. On the other hand, if you pocket the money and say, "Oh, well, their loss." -- this is, to me, no better than stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
Further discussion is an exercise in mental masturbation. You're not really listening to the things I'm saying -- a very simple concept which accurately and fully answered your "challenges". Instead, you're reduced to playing the semantics game. The fact is, if you believe in a God and/or afterlife, it is best to live by "the golden rule" because there is a very good chance that this is what you're religion requires of you. If you are an atheist, a strong logical argument can be made for any creature capable of empathy to do the same.
Don't feed the troll -- this exact cut-n-paste comment is all that he's ever posted. Four or five times now.
Enlightened self-interest, of course. "I will take from this person because as a thinking, feeling individual I am aware that I would not wish this person to take from me." Theology need not enter into it.
Who needs a paragraph? A sentence will do: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
What I heard: blah blah duplicated effort. blah blah choice.
Both sides of this tired old discussion have merit or else it wouldn't still be around after so many years. So please find something that's not a waste of time and energy to debate -- unless either of you honestly thinks you're going to change somebody's mind...
I know, I know, I'm gonna take a flamebait hit for this. I just wonder if people didn't spend all this time having the same pointless circular arguments, maybe there really /could/ be a refocus on common ground. In the words of Somebody Famous, "Can't we all just get along?"
It's good to see that you're conveniently ignoring your glaringly obvious spelling mistake. Since you have yet to provide a valid correction of your own, there's no further pleasure to be held in this conversation. We'll end it here.
Heh, fair enough.
Damnit. I'm such a loser. My only consolidation is that nobody else spotted this (or at least, nobody else commented on it) before I did:
You're not one of the foolish people who believes that the correct spelling is "grammer" are you?
I'm afrad that this is just mistaken. Playstation and PLaystation 2 did not use OpenGL, they used a proprietary interface. PS2 used a platform called Graphics Synthesizer by SOny; I am not sure what PS1 used, but I have been unable to find any evidence that it was opengl. The playstation 3 uses OpenGL ES which is the openGL standard for Embedded Accelerated 3D Graphics. Its not proprietary.
Good to know. At the time that Sony decided to use it, it was not a standard; they pushed to make it so, and it appears they were successful; thisi is a good thing. Please note that nowhere did I say PS3 did not use OpenGL. I was specifically referring to the PS and PS2, which still has a much larger installed based than PS3.
All of which goes to say that my original point remains correct. There is at present a larger potential market for modern DirectX games than for OpenGL.
Remember the part where we just discussed PS & PS2 not using OpenGL? Your numbers essentially just made my point. OpenGL as it stands today == PC market. XBox == PC market + 40 million additional consoles. Therefore, my point remains valid -- there is at present a significantly larger market for DirectX than for OpenGL.
We can keep going, if you wish...
I don't see how so; google doesn't provide information about the businesses (ie, customer reviews and feedback), only location information. Since it seems that your site seems focused on telling people /about/ the business rather than simply where they are, I don't see why this would even be considered in competition?
Oh yeah? Then what about ports to Playstations and Wiis? I'm not a console developer, but I'll bet those use OpenGL (and they certainly don't use DirectX)!
Playstation II is not OpenGL. Wii is not OpenGL. My understanding is that playstation III supports a dialect of opengl, which is not yet formally standardized.The simple fact is that using DirectX gives you access to the largest marketshare - the vast majority of PC desktops, AND a lesser majority of consoles. I don't say I like this, but it is what it is; the gaming industry is like any other, and it's all about profits. Not the individual developers, but the companies who back them. And those companies will tend to push the products in the direction they see the most opportunity. Unfortunately, at the moment that is DirectX.
i daresay he can make all
the stupid statements he wishes
he is as entitled to his opion
as you are to yours
but on to the real reason
for my post: the structure
of your comment made it into
an exotic visual
poetry
I realize that I stated it matter-of-factly but it's still of course only an opinion. The store tried to get the card back, but was told tough cookies, you are responsible for the transaction, and once the customer is out the door, too damn bad. Generally speaking, law and "right" are two different things. For a starting point on some interesting reading, the Jurisprudence/a> article on wikipedia is pretty good. I would be more sympathetic to your argument if these multibillion dollar institutions were held to the same standard you are proposing for the little guy. So it's OK for the little guy to do it, simply because the large institutions can do it? I suppose I'm in the minority, but I always felt that stealing was stealing; and it was wrong no matter who did it.
If you make the effort to return it, that's one thing. On the other hand, if you pocket the money and say, "Oh, well, their loss." -- this is, to me, no better than stealing.