I think your still missing the point that they did not have to do this. Depends on where you live. In some places Microsoft can't disavow any guarantee of service -- which means they owe the members either a refund or an extension to the service. That would be the right thing to do, not offering some crap game as a freebie.
I mean if you're going to pick such an arbitrary litmus for feelings, why not pick cells and decide that trees feel, or atoms and decide that everything does. We start life as a single cell. This single cell then divides many times. At what point does a person have "feelings"? How is a sufficiently complicated computer any different?
Quoted for posterity:
Posted by xboxfounder at 1/20/08 9:23 p.m.
Hi everyone. I understand the questions you all have. I hope you understand that it's a bit overwhelming to try and answer everything in real time. After tonight, I'm going to ask Jake (or Jacob?) to field your questions and funnel them to me for answers. Then we can do that in an organized way. But for now, I'm going to try and answer some that I thought were most important.
First, why the secrecy?
MS knows who I am. That's why I'm not concerned about self identifying to them in these postings with details only they would know, as some here have pointed out. The people who founded Xbox hw number 10. 1 left to go be the VP of manufacturing at Qualcomm, 1 left to go be the GM of engineering at Zune, 1 left after only 2 months in '99 due to conflicts with toddhol. He works on Surface now. The rest still work on Xbox. I am the only one who left the company entirely.
I am not concerned about MS knowing who I am. They are worried about me revealing their problems. Not the other way around. Plus, I have contacted every single attorney who has filed a lawsuit against MS and offered to help. Some have accepted, and that work is in progress. We'll talk about that in another post. It's very interesting, I just don't want a bunch of fan boys trying to hack my home PC (that I use for work). Harass my kids, call my house, etc.
Second, why now?
Well, it's not just now. I've been reaching out since before the product went into manufacturing. I left before launch. But many employees continued to contact me about the problems with the product and its launch. I did my best to help them figure out how to mitigate the problems caused my bad management decisions, and test the boxes right. Sometimes my ideas worked, sometimes they didn't. I then started to contact reporters. Sometimes it went no where. Sometimes, it resulted in a spectacular thing, like the ambush interview with toddhol just before MS admitted guilt. But still, it happened too slowly for me. That's one reason I'm doing this now.
When those articles were posted last July, I chimed in as a commentator. That's when Jake invited me for an interview. But I didn't see it then. It was only recently when I goog'ed "xboxfounder" on a whim that I found that old invite. So I contacted him to see if he was still interested. I sent him a current resume from my current work email account, and he believed me. If you guys don't, then tell me what you need to see as proof. And I will provide that.
Last: My motivation.
I have always been in a position to stand up for the customer. MS stopped me from doing that. They need to pay the price now. If you guys won't get together and make that happen, you have no hope for the future with them. It's not my fight, but I am here fighting. You decide what you want to do. And then do it!
I remember watching that episode thinking how lame that character was, and then Cartman makes a comment to him at the end how he's the weakest character ever. Classic:)
For what it's worth, the article quoted Oscar's trainer as saying "If they think it's such an advantage, why aren't they lining up for the same surgery?" and I tend to agree with him. What a ridiculous argument. If you were an athlete, would you want to "line up" to get your legs chopped off, even if it provided an advantage, for racing only? Those same artificial racing legs wouldn't be so good for other activities.
So - CDDL, 'open source', according to OSI, 'free', according to RMS. But the point remains that CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2. Stallman acknowledges other "free" licenses, but he also knows that some are incompatible with each other. So still no ZFS for Linux. Even if ZFS was re-implemented from scratch under GPLv2, there's still the patent issue. Sun only indemnifies ZFS adopters under the CDDL.
Sun would need to either dual-license ZFS under GLPv2, or grant patent rights that aren't restricted to the CDDL code. It's pretty simple, though some people are trying to cloud the issue, pretending that anybody but Sun is blocking ZFS from Linux.
Way I view it is "live forever or die trying" Sure, that's a common view -- most people want to live forever. I just disagree with the wild optimism of Kurzweil's followers. Technology for drastically extending life may just be around the corner, but I think eventually everybody will face death. Just remember that technology can be used for both health and destruction, accidents happen, etc. If nothing else there's the heat death of the Universe as a possibility:)
It would be far less risky from a philosophical standpoint to replace the brain with artificial parts and gradually integrate with a machine than to try to scan yourself and effectively kill off your body and brain But accidents will happen, ones that will overcome your little nano-machines, and that's when you'll need the offline backup. Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom is fun reading if you haven't read it yet.
I intend to live just long enough (naturally) that I can live forever (engineered). What's the probability that something can go wrong so that you don't live forever? I mean, forever is an awfully long time. I'd be surprised if humanity survives for a million years into the future, let alone 1 person. The thing about technology is that the more powerful it is the more destruction just a single person can do -- and that's just one of the threats.
What about your brain? Is it going to be backed up somewhere so that they could restore it? Can they restore it into two different people? Are you confident that *you* would still be alive?
Western medicine has always been about making sick people kinda better again Abortions and cosmetic surgery. Athletes going in for LASIK to get better than 20/20. Choosing the sex of your baby. It's going to be a brave new world.
1. Article posted that makes fundies look like idiots. Article posted that shows a new threat to science and secularism arising in Florida. Yeah, it will generate the same old debates, but it's definitely newsworthy. This is no different than a story on Microsoft, copyright, or whatever.
Sideshow discussions about reconciliation of theology and science in one's personal life, usually reasonably posited and humbly submitted; drowned out by the by now raging flame war. Now you're just getting in on the debate by talking about what you think is reasonable. What does this have to do with schools trying to get rid of evolution in the classroom?
"Since the above article was published in early 1986 most creationists have largely abandoned the "man track" claims regarding the Taylor Site and most other Paluxy sites. However, in 1987 Carl Baugh and Don Patton began making claims that the Taylor Tracks were dinosaur tracks with human tracks within them. Such claims have been found to be as unsupported by the evidence as the original "man track" claims, and are reviewed in my article 'Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks.'"
No, wrapping them in religious text does not particularly encourage dogma. Sure it does. By claiming to be the "word of God", the most supreme being, you encourage acceptance without reasoning or evidence. That's what faith is all about, and the Bible is full of stories about people being punished for going against his will. Science says to reason for ourselves based on evidence and experiments. That's not to say that dogma doesn't exist outside of religion, but it's clear that religion fundamentally encourages it.
You have never considered that your definition of "simple" might be, well, dogma of your invention? Sure, it's possible, and given sufficient evidence I'm willing to change my mind. I'll note, though, that I was raised to believe in God and the Bible, and rejected religion after reasoning on my own.
There are reasons for that, not the least of which is that the atheists' versions of God are a figment of their reasoning -- a strawman, if you will. Did God create the Universe? Is God all-powerful? Does God want us to live by the Ten Commandments? Was Jesus Christ sent by God to instruct us? Is the Bible a source of God's teachings? Those are the basics. I don't think they are controversial or a straw man.
All religions contain elements of truth. [...] There is only one real God. [...] Well, God is not a respecter of persons On what do you base these statements?
So, if you want to be extreme in your demand of lack of favoritism, you would be demanding that I become God. Not so extreme, but just to consider that you were indoctrinated with certain religious beliefs as part of your upbringing, that if you were born into another time or another religion you would have different beliefs. Also to consider that all organized religions and claims of have first-hand knowledge of God might be inventions of man to explain life's mysteries, to wield power over others, etc.
To consider you're inventing elaborate excuses to fit an idea you were indoctrinated in, but aren't willing to give up. There's evidence all around us that people make up stuff and call it religion, and that religion in general has been retreating in the face of science, until we're left with God of the Gaps.
Why use the neologism 'libertarian' when the perfectly good and pedigreed term 'anarchism' covers all possible kinds of libertarianism, and more? I think because when people hear any word based on anarchy they picture masses of people running around in chaotic fashion shooting at each other. Liberty has a much better connotation.
You've said two things:
Mathematically checking your code produces lean and bug-free code all the time. and
And yeah, if you use formal methods, except for syntax errors 90% of stuff works perfectly on the first run. If you're making syntax errors after having "proved" your code then clearly there's a step that isn't formal that introduces bugs.
Since when does "freedom" mean "free to fuck off and do whatever I want and fuck the consequences"? Since always, as long as you aren't directly violating somebody else by killing them or something. Of course, no man is an island, and individual freedom often comes into conflict with what's good for society. Where the line is drawn is a matter for political debate, but make no mistake about it, forcing a man to vote is violating his individual freedom.
Personally, I am against it, though I see why some people are for it.
It's a violation of human freedom to be forced to participate in the democracy you live in? I think the two words in conflict are "freedom" and "forced".
If people really needed the entertainment THAT BAD then they should have maybe played a card game with their parents. This lawsuit is dumb. Paying for something that you cannot use is dumb. The only just compensation is either a month's refund or a month's free extension of the service. Tossing people some worthless Live Arcade game doesn't cut it.
rather useful rules of life Which ones? The ones you accept, but not the ones you reject? Wrapping them in religious text just enourages dogma.
with the help of the same influence or being that created the universe and all truth Well this is the whole point. Applying reason and Occam's Razor says that the Bible is not inspired by God, at least not by any God described in the Bible.
Truth does exist independently of us. (So does the real God.) [...] But I'm definitely with you if you mean to scrap false religion. What I've seen is that you apply contorted reasoning to fit your preconceived notion of God, pretending that you are searching for Truth. Could it be that God of the Bible is mythology, no different than any other culture's religion? You only beleive in God of the Bible because you were raised in a religion based on Judaism. There are other religions besides Judaism. Why show favoritism?
Rules for running a nation or war are not the same as a moral code Yes they are. Morals allow people to live together. Nations are just bigger groups of people. Morals still apply, and that's why treaties like the Geneva Conventions exist. It's just that nations are in the juvenile stage of ethical behavior.
Accurately recording history is not the same as endorsing immoral behavior That excuse doesn't stick. Numbers 31 starts with:
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people."
The rest is Moses fulfilling the command and then the LORD instructing Moses on how to divide the "booty", virgins included. If the LORD was upset over Moses' actions, it would be mentioned here. However, the LORD doesn't chastise, but He does make sure he gets his tribute:
"And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons."
That's 32 virgins for the LORD. Amen?
I don't feel this is the right place for a point by point examination, but it presents no arguments not already adequately addressed by Christian apologists in other places. Ok, then provide a link that you feel adequately addresses the issues.
Do you have a better way? Seems that spending a few minutes on nutrition is a pretty good use of time, and once you have some standard recipies you don't have to keep on entering data.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi everyone. I understand the questions you all have. I hope you understand that it's a bit overwhelming to try and answer everything in real time. After tonight, I'm going to ask Jake (or Jacob?) to field your questions and funnel them to me for answers. Then we can do that in an organized way. But for now, I'm going to try and answer some that I thought were most important.
First, why the secrecy?
MS knows who I am. That's why I'm not concerned about self identifying to them in these postings with details only they would know, as some here have pointed out. The people who founded Xbox hw number 10. 1 left to go be the VP of manufacturing at Qualcomm, 1 left to go be the GM of engineering at Zune, 1 left after only 2 months in '99 due to conflicts with toddhol. He works on Surface now. The rest still work on Xbox. I am the only one who left the company entirely.
I am not concerned about MS knowing who I am. They are worried about me revealing their problems. Not the other way around. Plus, I have contacted every single attorney who has filed a lawsuit against MS and offered to help. Some have accepted, and that work is in progress. We'll talk about that in another post. It's very interesting, I just don't want a bunch of fan boys trying to hack my home PC (that I use for work). Harass my kids, call my house, etc.
Second, why now?
Well, it's not just now. I've been reaching out since before the product went into manufacturing. I left before launch. But many employees continued to contact me about the problems with the product and its launch. I did my best to help them figure out how to mitigate the problems caused my bad management decisions, and test the boxes right. Sometimes my ideas worked, sometimes they didn't. I then started to contact reporters. Sometimes it went no where. Sometimes, it resulted in a spectacular thing, like the ambush interview with toddhol just before MS admitted guilt. But still, it happened too slowly for me. That's one reason I'm doing this now.
When those articles were posted last July, I chimed in as a commentator. That's when Jake invited me for an interview. But I didn't see it then. It was only recently when I goog'ed "xboxfounder" on a whim that I found that old invite. So I contacted him to see if he was still interested. I sent him a current resume from my current work email account, and he believed me. If you guys don't, then tell me what you need to see as proof. And I will provide that.
Last: My motivation.
I have always been in a position to stand up for the customer. MS stopped me from doing that. They need to pay the price now. If you guys won't get together and make that happen, you have no hope for the future with them. It's not my fight, but I am here fighting. You decide what you want to do. And then do it!
I remember watching that episode thinking how lame that character was, and then Cartman makes a comment to him at the end how he's the weakest character ever. Classic :)
Sun would need to either dual-license ZFS under GLPv2, or grant patent rights that aren't restricted to the CDDL code. It's pretty simple, though some people are trying to cloud the issue, pretending that anybody but Sun is blocking ZFS from Linux.
What about your brain? Is it going to be backed up somewhere so that they could restore it? Can they restore it into two different people? Are you confident that *you* would still be alive?
It's Convention over Configuration.
You might find this page interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html
Sample:
"Since the above article was published in early 1986 most creationists have largely abandoned the "man track" claims regarding the Taylor Site and most other Paluxy sites. However, in 1987 Carl Baugh and Don Patton began making claims that the Taylor Tracks were dinosaur tracks with human tracks within them. Such claims have been found to be as unsupported by the evidence as the original "man track" claims, and are reviewed in my article 'Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks.'"
To consider you're inventing elaborate excuses to fit an idea you were indoctrinated in, but aren't willing to give up. There's evidence all around us that people make up stuff and call it religion, and that religion in general has been retreating in the face of science, until we're left with God of the Gaps.
Personally, I am against it, though I see why some people are for it.
Paragraphs.
Too bad Ron Paul doesn't believe in the separation of church and state: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Religion
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people."
The rest is Moses fulfilling the command and then the LORD instructing Moses on how to divide the "booty", virgins included. If the LORD was upset over Moses' actions, it would be mentioned here. However, the LORD doesn't chastise, but He does make sure he gets his tribute:
"And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons."
That's 32 virgins for the LORD. Amen? I don't feel this is the right place for a point by point examination, but it presents no arguments not already adequately addressed by Christian apologists in other places. Ok, then provide a link that you feel adequately addresses the issues.
Do you have a better way? Seems that spending a few minutes on nutrition is a pretty good use of time, and once you have some standard recipies you don't have to keep on entering data.