You ignored the sole reason why I even bothered to comment in the first place, and it was the phrase, "Posting anon for obvious reasons." This phrase is usually used by people who have accounts. I really wasn't interested in getting into a debate on the overall value of Anonymous Cowards.
Heil Hitler!!
This is why Godwin's Law was invented in the first place. The idea of any meaningful discussion occurring after something like this is unlikely. I let it slide once, but no more replies from me.
Declare it dead for whatever reason you want. The fact is you ignored my argument and responded to a different one. Now you are just dodging it completely.
It was an important argument, too, because it was the sole reason I even bothered to make the post that started this little debate. I do NOT consider every person who doesn't want to be bothered with an account a coward. My original statement was aimed at what sounded like somebody who had an account that was afraid to post with it.
I would have said "Not all human affairs consist of . ..".
I agree, that's a better statement. Even so, many, many concepts that people deal with our fuzzy in nature or offer extremes with a spectrum in between.
After all, this one seems cut and dried: you are as anonymous to me, as I to you.
I have a consistent posting history and an exclusive account that gives me an identity. You are indistinguishable from any other Anonymous Coward. Whether you are interested in it or not is up to you, but many people are interested in that aspect and care about reputations and identities. It forms the basis of society.
You feel the need to use a person's pseudonym as a reference point, so you can judge them before you even listen to what they are saying.
If everybody was Anonymous in a thread, then you would never be able to get a consistent view of the conversation about who was saying what. Maybe you like this, but I don't.
If I was a different AC than the OP
The only reason I accept that you are the same AC and bother to reply is because at this point I doubt it's another AC reading and replying this deep and late into a conversation.
I try to not rely on popular opinion.
I have better things to do with my time than read every single Slashdot post. Furthermore, as I've said, I read both parents and replies to interesting comments, so I get contrary views. I then decide for myself what to think.
And you discount the Funny by -6? Don't like a good joke now and then? Do you really take yourself that seriously?
I like a funny joke now and then, and I was even amused for a short while when I first started reading Slashdot, but it got old, quick. Just too many comedians, and I don't come to Slashdot for the humor. I do run across the occasional joke that I like on here, and will even make some myself, and that's good enough for me.
The Earth is an impressive thing, but even more impressive is the complete universe, especially if it is indefinitely branched into a multiverse infinity. Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?
Because it directly contradicts the Genesis story, or the idea of a personal God that cares about and interferes in the lives of mankind. No more Heaven, either, or Hell to punish the wicked. Just our mortal existence without any rhyme or reason beyond that it is possible.
And the real kicker is that if you admit the multiverse, then you don't need a "God". It just is. Using "God" this way is just the same old God of the Gaps that's been happening as science has advanced. It's the, "I don't understand, hence God," claim.
I fail to see a strawman. I would bet any amount of money that the majority of AC posts on this site are from people who don't want to bother with a pseudonym.
You fail to see the strawman because you aren't critically reading the whole paragraph, and are only replying to the part you excerpted. I'll quote it here for you:
"The phrase, "Posting anon for obvious reasons," is a common Slashdot phrase for people with accounts who are posting something they are afraid to put their handle behind."
Everybody knows when somebody is posting anon. You don't need to announce it. People use that phrase to draw attention to the fact that they normally post with an account. If that wasn't true in your case, fine, but that's the ordinary usage of that phrase.
I don't believe there is any middle ground.
That's binary thinking that doesn't acknowledge real differences and real-word complexities. Human affairs do not consist of mathematical assertions in binary logic.
Anything less than full identification is anonymity. If I can't identify you, then you remain anonymous. [..] AC is a persistent identity, too. No lie - my real first name is Bryan. Now you actually know more about the real me, than I do about the real you.
No, I don't know shit. You're an Anonymous Coward, and for all I know I'm talking to a different one. People who post under a consistent account have reputations and posting histories. If you wanted to know more about me you could read all my posts and get a good idea of where I stand on a number of topics.
When I read Slashdot, I first load all comments, and then I set the filters to show zero hidden comments. I do that because I want to formulate my own opinion on the topic.
For me, there's too many posts to read through. I read at 3+, I discount the +1 bonuses that long-term users get, and I discount Funny by -6 so I don't see them by default. When I find something interesting, I'll read either the parent or following replies. It's not perfect, but it makes the best use of my time.
Filesharing is one issue. I've also seen hive-mind applied to religion, Windoze/Micro$oft, Apple, Linux, Google, politics, nuclear power, daylight savings time. The list is nigh endless.
Maybe so, but it's often the case than on any given story that I see contrary viewpoints modded up in a thread.
The one that probably tops the list, though, is that AC should be ignored, because he has nothing intelligent to say.
Yet AC posts do get modded up in any given story. As a general class, AC posts tend to be worse, but it's not a solid rule.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
You also have to explain why during the period between about 750-1200 CE, the Muslim world and Mecca in particular was one of the 2 major centers of scholarship and science (the other being China), while Christian Europe had mostly paltry scientific output throughout the same period.
Looks like things have been reversed, doesn't it? Christian Europe had their Renaissance. Islam is in its Dark Ages.
My personal memory counts for exactly the same amount as Gates' and Allen's.
Perhaps to you. To anybody else, no. You should also be more skeptical of your memories, because they are notoriously faulty. You're probably just misremembering the details of whatever interview you saw, assuming you aren't making it up to begin with.
I used it as an example of how people decide what is most likely true. I could also have talked about Wikipedia, which goes by citations from reliable sources.
As I already told you, Gates himself credited Allen as the brains of the operation in an interview at one time.
Yes, YOU told me this, yet you have not cited any evidence in support of it beyond your own personal memory. Get this through your thick head: You are just a random Slashdotter. Your personal memory counts for nothing unless you can back it up. Any Slashdotter can make claims about an interview they saw.
The fact that he later contradicted himself, making a ludicrous claim that nobody in their right mind would ever believe merely goes to further impeach his credibility.
It's an unusual, but not ludicrous claim. Some people are capable of remembering surprising stuff. And the thing is, he didn't contradict himself by any credible evidence. Your unsubstantiated memory of an interview is not credible.
For example, since we all agree that Allen did some significant percentage of the work, why does Gates remember every line?
Considering that there were only three programmers and the program was small enough that it had to fit in 4k while still leaving room for programs, it's quite likely that they all worked on and reviewed each others code. Even if he was exaggerating and couldn't sit down and write it from scratch, you could probably produce a listing and he could talk about it with familiarity.
From the Allen reference: "Working so closely together, the three of us developed a strong camaraderie. [..] We staged nightly competitions to squeeze a sub-routine [..] into the fewest instructions, taking notepads to separate corners of the room and scrawling away. Then someone would say, 'I can do it in nine.' And someone else would call out, 'Well, I can do it in five!'"
The fact is that there is cited evidence from two of the primary principals involved that they worked on this project together, and all you've got is a personal memory from a contradictory interview that you cannot substantiate.
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I just had to go look him up in Wikipedia to see what he was up to, and came across this gem:
"You know why my show is good? Because the network officials say you're not smart enough to get what I'm doing, and every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid."
I don't know what you are talking about. In a court of law these would be primary witnesses that have a consistent story and no reason to lie, and there is no evidence that they did.
You are a random Slashdotter that can't corroborate anything you say. For all I know you're either misremembering or making it up to fit your preconceived prejudice of Bill Gates.
It hurts to even think about being wrong, doesn't it?
You, you are incredibly pathetic. You are trying to equate the documented statements of the principals involved with some random Slashdotter's undocumented claim of a video he saw, where one of the principals said something different.
In other words, we're both starting with statements from the principals, but my claims are documented and in agreement with each other, and yours are in your head.
What's pathetic is your lack of citations but strong claims. Also, what's really pathetic is saying that Allen's statement "means nothing." The man was there, in the thick of it. The same man that you claim deserves all the credit. You think that he completely misremembers working on the project together?
Your personal anecdote of a video you are recalling from memory means nothing. I can provide an actual citation to video where Gates says he recalls every line from the BASIC implementation.
You are thinking of Paul Allen. Yes, Gates was tangentially involved, but even Gates himself credits Allen as the brains behind the work, and it was Allen who had the background and skills.
Your version of the story isn't supported by evidence. You might try reading Paul Allen's version:
"I'd occasionally catch Bill grabbing naps at his terminal during our late-nighters. He'd be in the middle of a line of code when he'd gradually tilt forward until his nose touched the keyboard. After dozing for an hour or two, he'd open his eyes, squint at the screen, blink twice, and resume precisely where he'd left off--a prodigious feat of concentration. [..] And it was a true collaboration. I'd estimate that 45 percent of the code was Bill's, 30 percent Monte's, and 25 percent mine, excluding my development tools."
What is it with people using words like this instead of sold? Is it just too mundane? Are the marketing droids trying to sound smart again, and it's getting picked up by the populace?
I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true.... and conversely, plenty of evidence to believe other worldviews are false.
Oh, good, then you're a good person to ask this question to. Why is there only one Christ? Surely an all-powerful god would give the same message to everybody in the world throughout all times? Yet we don't see Christian teachings in isolated places like China, the Americas, Africa, etc. in ancient history. And where was the Christian message before Christ?
It's like different people, isolated around the world and left to their own devices, came up with different answers. Yet 2,000 years later we're supposed to believe the Christian Bible is the one true religion, and all those other ones are not.
I also think that atheists go too far... they see all of the problems of religion, but do not see the clear path through those problems to a set of beliefs that are not bound by the religionist superstitions and dogma.
That's called philosophy, not religion.
True religion is free of dogma and superstition and embraces all truth.
What is this "true religion" you speak of? All you did was redefine religion to what you wanted it to be. Let's try a dictionary instead:
"1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."
Of course, the average person doesn't have any direct experience with such powers, so they rely on religious authority in the form of dogma, prophets, religious texts, and the like.
I happen to believe that it is only in and through Christ that one can have the most personal, the deepest, and the most significant growth.
Ah, so this is your "true" religion. You have accepted religious authority from a prophet that was written about 2,000 years ago. You could also go with secular humanism and ditch the mysticism.
This is silly. You are bashing the man for speaking his mind when his views are unpopular, as well as for voting by his principles when it's also unpopular, while every other politician out there is doing the opposite. What the fuck do you want him to do?
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing was ignored.
You ignored the sole reason why I even bothered to comment in the first place, and it was the phrase, "Posting anon for obvious reasons." This phrase is usually used by people who have accounts. I really wasn't interested in getting into a debate on the overall value of Anonymous Cowards.
Heil Hitler!!
This is why Godwin's Law was invented in the first place. The idea of any meaningful discussion occurring after something like this is unlikely. I let it slide once, but no more replies from me.
I declared that argument dead, because of it.
Declare it dead for whatever reason you want. The fact is you ignored my argument and responded to a different one. Now you are just dodging it completely.
It was an important argument, too, because it was the sole reason I even bothered to make the post that started this little debate. I do NOT consider every person who doesn't want to be bothered with an account a coward. My original statement was aimed at what sounded like somebody who had an account that was afraid to post with it.
I would have said "Not all human affairs consist of . . .".
I agree, that's a better statement. Even so, many, many concepts that people deal with our fuzzy in nature or offer extremes with a spectrum in between.
After all, this one seems cut and dried: you are as anonymous to me, as I to you.
I have a consistent posting history and an exclusive account that gives me an identity. You are indistinguishable from any other Anonymous Coward. Whether you are interested in it or not is up to you, but many people are interested in that aspect and care about reputations and identities. It forms the basis of society.
You feel the need to use a person's pseudonym as a reference point, so you can judge them before you even listen to what they are saying.
If everybody was Anonymous in a thread, then you would never be able to get a consistent view of the conversation about who was saying what. Maybe you like this, but I don't.
If I was a different AC than the OP
The only reason I accept that you are the same AC and bother to reply is because at this point I doubt it's another AC reading and replying this deep and late into a conversation.
I try to not rely on popular opinion.
I have better things to do with my time than read every single Slashdot post. Furthermore, as I've said, I read both parents and replies to interesting comments, so I get contrary views. I then decide for myself what to think.
And you discount the Funny by -6? Don't like a good joke now and then? Do you really take yourself that seriously?
I like a funny joke now and then, and I was even amused for a short while when I first started reading Slashdot, but it got old, quick. Just too many comedians, and I don't come to Slashdot for the humor. I do run across the occasional joke that I like on here, and will even make some myself, and that's good enough for me.
The Earth is an impressive thing, but even more impressive is the complete universe, especially if it is indefinitely branched into a multiverse infinity. Why can't religious people see this as a much, much greater feat of creation, resulting in God being infinitely more omnipotent?
Because it directly contradicts the Genesis story, or the idea of a personal God that cares about and interferes in the lives of mankind. No more Heaven, either, or Hell to punish the wicked. Just our mortal existence without any rhyme or reason beyond that it is possible.
And the real kicker is that if you admit the multiverse, then you don't need a "God". It just is. Using "God" this way is just the same old God of the Gaps that's been happening as science has advanced. It's the, "I don't understand, hence God," claim.
I fail to see a strawman. I would bet any amount of money that the majority of AC posts on this site are from people who don't want to bother with a pseudonym.
You fail to see the strawman because you aren't critically reading the whole paragraph, and are only replying to the part you excerpted. I'll quote it here for you:
"The phrase, "Posting anon for obvious reasons," is a common Slashdot phrase for people with accounts who are posting something they are afraid to put their handle behind."
Everybody knows when somebody is posting anon. You don't need to announce it. People use that phrase to draw attention to the fact that they normally post with an account. If that wasn't true in your case, fine, but that's the ordinary usage of that phrase.
I don't believe there is any middle ground.
That's binary thinking that doesn't acknowledge real differences and real-word complexities. Human affairs do not consist of mathematical assertions in binary logic.
Anything less than full identification is anonymity. If I can't identify you, then you remain anonymous. [..] AC is a persistent identity, too. No lie - my real first name is Bryan. Now you actually know more about the real me, than I do about the real you.
No, I don't know shit. You're an Anonymous Coward, and for all I know I'm talking to a different one. People who post under a consistent account have reputations and posting histories. If you wanted to know more about me you could read all my posts and get a good idea of where I stand on a number of topics.
When I read Slashdot, I first load all comments, and then I set the filters to show zero hidden comments. I do that because I want to formulate my own opinion on the topic.
For me, there's too many posts to read through. I read at 3+, I discount the +1 bonuses that long-term users get, and I discount Funny by -6 so I don't see them by default. When I find something interesting, I'll read either the parent or following replies. It's not perfect, but it makes the best use of my time.
Filesharing is one issue. I've also seen hive-mind applied to religion, Windoze/Micro$oft, Apple, Linux, Google, politics, nuclear power, daylight savings time. The list is nigh endless.
Maybe so, but it's often the case than on any given story that I see contrary viewpoints modded up in a thread.
The one that probably tops the list, though, is that AC should be ignored, because he has nothing intelligent to say.
Yet AC posts do get modded up in any given story. As a general class, AC posts tend to be worse, but it's not a solid rule.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
There's Einstein invoking Intelligent Design.
You also have to explain why during the period between about 750-1200 CE, the Muslim world and Mecca in particular was one of the 2 major centers of scholarship and science (the other being China), while Christian Europe had mostly paltry scientific output throughout the same period.
Looks like things have been reversed, doesn't it? Christian Europe had their Renaissance. Islam is in its Dark Ages.
Ah, yes, the fingers in ears, "la la la, I can't hear you," defense.
My personal memory counts for exactly the same amount as Gates' and Allen's.
Perhaps to you. To anybody else, no. You should also be more skeptical of your memories, because they are notoriously faulty. You're probably just misremembering the details of whatever interview you saw, assuming you aren't making it up to begin with.
This has nothing to do with a court of law
I used it as an example of how people decide what is most likely true. I could also have talked about Wikipedia, which goes by citations from reliable sources.
As I already told you, Gates himself credited Allen as the brains of the operation in an interview at one time.
Yes, YOU told me this, yet you have not cited any evidence in support of it beyond your own personal memory. Get this through your thick head: You are just a random Slashdotter. Your personal memory counts for nothing unless you can back it up. Any Slashdotter can make claims about an interview they saw.
The fact that he later contradicted himself, making a ludicrous claim that nobody in their right mind would ever believe merely goes to further impeach his credibility.
It's an unusual, but not ludicrous claim. Some people are capable of remembering surprising stuff. And the thing is, he didn't contradict himself by any credible evidence. Your unsubstantiated memory of an interview is not credible.
For example, since we all agree that Allen did some significant percentage of the work, why does Gates remember every line?
Considering that there were only three programmers and the program was small enough that it had to fit in 4k while still leaving room for programs, it's quite likely that they all worked on and reviewed each others code. Even if he was exaggerating and couldn't sit down and write it from scratch, you could probably produce a listing and he could talk about it with familiarity.
From the Allen reference: "Working so closely together, the three of us developed a strong camaraderie. [..] We staged nightly competitions to squeeze a sub-routine [..] into the fewest instructions, taking notepads to separate corners of the room and scrawling away. Then someone would say, 'I can do it in nine.' And someone else would call out, 'Well, I can do it in five!'"
The fact is that there is cited evidence from two of the primary principals involved that they worked on this project together, and all you've got is a personal memory from a contradictory interview that you cannot substantiate.
Dave Chappelle mentions Linux
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time. I just had to go look him up in Wikipedia to see what he was up to, and came across this gem:
"You know why my show is good? Because the network officials say you're not smart enough to get what I'm doing, and every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid."
I don't know what you are talking about. In a court of law these would be primary witnesses that have a consistent story and no reason to lie, and there is no evidence that they did.
You are a random Slashdotter that can't corroborate anything you say. For all I know you're either misremembering or making it up to fit your preconceived prejudice of Bill Gates.
It hurts to even think about being wrong, doesn't it?
You, you are incredibly pathetic. You are trying to equate the documented statements of the principals involved with some random Slashdotter's undocumented claim of a video he saw, where one of the principals said something different.
In other words, we're both starting with statements from the principals, but my claims are documented and in agreement with each other, and yours are in your head.
I know your poor ego can't admit you were wrong.
It's up to 141,226 now, and the top-rated comment is:
"why is it the black robot that has to click like a madman for the white robot...?"
Which I think is pretty hilarious. It also explains what the black robot was doing. I didn't get it at first.
What's pathetic is your lack of citations but strong claims. Also, what's really pathetic is saying that Allen's statement "means nothing." The man was there, in the thick of it. The same man that you claim deserves all the credit. You think that he completely misremembers working on the project together?
Your personal anecdote of a video you are recalling from memory means nothing. I can provide an actual citation to video where Gates says he recalls every line from the BASIC implementation.
You have no evidence and no credibility.
I think at this point you should just admit you have no evidence on your side. Provide a cite if you do.
You are thinking of Paul Allen. Yes, Gates was tangentially involved, but even Gates himself credits Allen as the brains behind the work, and it was Allen who had the background and skills.
Your version of the story isn't supported by evidence. You might try reading Paul Allen's version:
"I'd occasionally catch Bill grabbing naps at his terminal during our late-nighters. He'd be in the middle of a line of code when he'd gradually tilt forward until his nose touched the keyboard. After dozing for an hour or two, he'd open his eyes, squint at the screen, blink twice, and resume precisely where he'd left off--a prodigious feat of concentration. [..] And it was a true collaboration. I'd estimate that 45 percent of the code was Bill's, 30 percent Monte's, and 25 percent mine, excluding my development tools."
Starcraft 2 shifted 3 million
What is it with people using words like this instead of sold? Is it just too mundane? Are the marketing droids trying to sound smart again, and it's getting picked up by the populace?
But they do get millions in tax breaks to game studios. Both actions are done in the name of the local economy.
"The only sports are motor racing, mountain climbing, and bull fighting. All the rest are games."
Translation: The only thing that are sports are the things that I like. Besides that, bull fighting is ritualized slaughter, not a sport.
Of course there are an awful lot of idiots. Makes me wish for a global pandemic of a fatal disease, it does.
Just remember that you're an idiot in somebody else's eyes, and they'd be just as happy to see you die in your pandemic.
I have plenty of evidence on which to believe Christianity to be true.... and conversely, plenty of evidence to believe other worldviews are false.
Oh, good, then you're a good person to ask this question to. Why is there only one Christ? Surely an all-powerful god would give the same message to everybody in the world throughout all times? Yet we don't see Christian teachings in isolated places like China, the Americas, Africa, etc. in ancient history. And where was the Christian message before Christ?
It's like different people, isolated around the world and left to their own devices, came up with different answers. Yet 2,000 years later we're supposed to believe the Christian Bible is the one true religion, and all those other ones are not.
I also think that atheists go too far... they see all of the problems of religion, but do not see the clear path through those problems to a set of beliefs that are not bound by the religionist superstitions and dogma.
That's called philosophy, not religion.
True religion is free of dogma and superstition and embraces all truth.
What is this "true religion" you speak of? All you did was redefine religion to what you wanted it to be. Let's try a dictionary instead:
"1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."
Of course, the average person doesn't have any direct experience with such powers, so they rely on religious authority in the form of dogma, prophets, religious texts, and the like.
I happen to believe that it is only in and through Christ that one can have the most personal, the deepest, and the most significant growth.
Ah, so this is your "true" religion. You have accepted religious authority from a prophet that was written about 2,000 years ago. You could also go with secular humanism and ditch the mysticism.
Let's be real here. The vast majority of people are not going to give up the convenience of modern living even if there weren't any legal barriers.
That doesn't mean some shouldn't be singled out over others.
This is silly. You are bashing the man for speaking his mind when his views are unpopular, as well as for voting by his principles when it's also unpopular, while every other politician out there is doing the opposite. What the fuck do you want him to do?
Yeah, we're going to have fun with this kid
You going to show him some porn and then take him to the whorehouse? Eh, don't answer. I really don't want to know.