I won't debate the observed data, but I'm betting this guy is a little short of a full picnic basket. Anyone who refers to himself extensively in the 3rd person and isn't famous might want to re-evaluate their opinion of themselves. Hell, even superstars sound like fools when they do it. I particularly enjoyed when Hoagland referenced his own work as, 'Hoagland's "magnum opus".' Nice touch.
And we only have data to compare against for most of this information for what, the past 30 or 40 years, tops. Before making assumptions about the "insanity" of the action, we might want to consider our perspective on the data. I'm reminded of the story about the blind men and the elephant.
First off, my position: I don't watch Enterprise but don't want to see it cancelled, either. It would just get replaced with something worse. And I have heard that the story arc is getting better, which is what really needs to happen.
But... It just seems so mean-spirited to wish for a show's cancellation-- over a hundred people lose their jobs as a result, and I'm not talking about high-paid actors, I'm talking about camera men, editors, janitors-- normal people.
I have to disagree on this. Charity is no reason to argue for a show to continue. Using that logic, no show, no matter how bad, would ever be canned. And, should Enterprise be cancelled, then another show would take it's place, hiring back on cameramen, editors, etc., if not the same, then ones who were out-of-work before.
Anyway, they're union and typically have better safety nets than those of us in the tech world. Which begs the question, why do they need unions and we don't? Should we have unions or should they not?
The cycling option isn't helped by the portion of the cycling population who follow traffic laws only when convenient for them.
I live in CA and several of the guys in my office bike to work. I've seen them on the road and they follow the law. However, I hear them complain and regularly see other cyclists alternately following traffic law, pedestrian law, or no law whatsoever. For example, this week I saw a cyclist get into the left lane behind some other cars and the light turned red. Instead of acting like a vehicle and waiting out the light, he pulled around the cars, swerved into the crosswalk and used it, then the next crosswalk, to make a left, all against the lights (both traffic & pedestrian). Would this be tolerated if it was done by a car, or even motorcycle? But on a bike, it's commonplace.
With a portion of the population haphazardly following laws, and seemingly little police enforcement (I've never seen one of the 100s of Mountain View police pull over a bike), anyone riding in a car, looking out the window considering a bike is much less likely to make the transition when they see cyclists dodging through traffic and hopping curbs, 250lb unarmored ants among 3000lb sport utility vehicles.
This thread is dead, but I'm going to provide some feedback on Gunslingers method of argument. This will probably be seen as flame, though I think it might be worthwhile reading for Gunslinger if he chooses to recognize it.
Gunslinger - The responding arguments seem based on condescension; by trying to establish the opposing viewpoint as inept or stupid, you free yourself from having to address the actual point. When you do address a point, I noticed that you selectively interpret the meaning of statements to match your arguments, or confuse prior mocking on your part with statements made by me.
For example, on the topic of profit, you are absolutely correct that corporations and such are driven by profits. You'll note that you even quote me as such when I wrote, "Yes, both companies exist to make a profit, but companies differ in how they go about [it]...". Yet at the end of your post, you dedicate an entire paragraph to disassembling an implied argument by me that corporations exist for some reason other than profit. (Non-profits presumbly excluded from both our generalizations.) You suggest I thought Saturn was doing it because they felt sorry for car buyers, when in my original post I wrote, "[branding] is an important tool in how a company makes the aforementioned profit" So you have fabricated a position for me, and successfully (and condescendingly) contested it.
Next, an example of selective interpretation. The preceding argument--when referring back to your original quote--is the first sentence in the below quote:
There are NO differences between the companies as far as "caring about gamers" is concerned. Both exist to make a profit. Period. Several people I know are big independent ATI developers. ATI provides them with code samples, driver updates, etc.. gratis.
You identify "gamers" as the topic, yet bring up developers. If you meant developers, then quote the appropriate section. Yes, the parent refers to both, yet you choose one, then mid-way select a new subject to allow you to provide more argument material.
Regardless, you do not prove that there are similarities between nVidia & ATI's relationship with developers as you offer "free code samples, driver updates, etc...." as proof while failing to address any specific issues such as stratjakt's criticisms of game anomolies, poor textures, etc. (In fact, it seems to support stratjakt's argument about lip-service.) Instead, it appears to be a case of an opportunity to name-drop, again following a policy of establishing superiority in the argument not by means of addressing the argument, but by demonstrating your relationship with ATI developers (which, btw, weakens your argument as it implies you might be part of the so-called rabid fan-base you reference).
In short, the original post you made and your subsequent response to me demonstrate the following shortcomings:
You poorly organize the material you do have in an effort to prove someone else wrong, rather than establish a valid argument;
You fabricate simple arguments to debate against that were not present in the original email;
You patronize to try to establish a superior position.
This is a poor method of debate and it reads that, in this case, your pride demanded a response over substance.
There are NO differences between the companies as far as "caring about gamers" is concerned. Both exist to make a profit. Period.
That is an awfully narrow view of the business world. Yes, both companies exist to make a profit, but companies can differ in how they go about trying to make a profit both in the products they make and in how they sell them. Call it marketing, brand positioning, whatever, it exists.
To take your auto example of Ford vs. Chevy...you might recall in the 90's a new brand called Saturn carved out a healthy market share by making average cars but selling them by "caring about the buyers." They instituted friendly dealerships with no-haggle pricing and a small company feel. They created a distinction by adjusting how they presented themselves to their buyers. It is an important tool in how a company makes the aforementioned profit; to reduce a company's position on brand position to "they're making a profit" is a short-sighted and dangerous generalization.
Furthermore, your points about ATI providing code samples, driver updates, etc., and references to acquantainces who are big independent ATI developers has nothing to do with your preceding argument. They are developers, a very different market than the actual consumers (gamers). They, too, are in it for a profit, and ATI needs to establish a different relationship with them. You might as well argue that you don't like the taste of oranges because the farmers who grow them get free Dole t-shirts.
partial agreement. the one-sided political brainwashing of children is certainly unfair; i questioned and disliked my teachers who tried it. (incidentally, that it will probably happen from parents if not outside sources is also a given. we shouldn't be so quick to point out schools and tvs as the sole culprits, but recognize many parents' lack of attention to this, as well.)
back to the point--i think you are confusing issues.
the tesla activism is hardly a political campaign on level with blinded letter-writing like the 'save the rainforest' one you mentioned. the tesla issue is not an existing multimillion $ campaign but rather one started at the classroom level. taken ad nauseam, one might argue that pen pal programs are despicable because they force children into writing letters without properly explaining the potential grief of unanswered letters, false joy in respondents, and broken friendships. clearly there is a distinction between extremes and, in my opinion, the tesla campaign falls within reason.
why? getting back to your point regarding failing to present both sides of the issue--i'm curious. what makes you certain that this teacher hasn't? after reading his pages, he seems to have followed a reasonable path over at least 10 years. furthermore, it seems this level of dispute with the smithsonian is a more recent development. his students (hopefully still not the same 3rd grade class as 1989, hehe) were probably not subjected to a fierce pro-tesla campaign from the start, but rather started with a class lesson on tesla and grew with the teacher through a logical course of events. i *am* concerned the younger students will miss out on the progression that led up to this point, seeing only the one side now presented. but i think that the persistence, the respect for history, and the desire to see fair recognition for a man's accomplishments (quite obviously not being done) are all very worthy causes for this campaign.
and, even if i am wrong, the intelligent students in the class will, like you and i did with our teachers, take more away from this than the teacher put in.
and, finally, a bit of sarcasm (because it wouldn't be a post without it)...
keep in mind that a possible reason for keeping tesla out, besides "lacking in theory", is because there are no giant electric, sponsorship-offering, companies bearing his name. given/.'s typical fare, i am surprised you did not mention this.
after all, wagner does point out that the smithsonian did refuse to credit the wright brothers until after both of their deaths. why? allegedly because the head of the smithsonian had failed in his own attempt to build a flying contraption.
maybe *gasp* the faculties of yale, princeton, mit and harvard might know more than a couple of biased secretaries at the smithsonian?
PC mag I think it was? Anyway , the article talked about Linus' super secret company , Transmeta, there are rumors that they are making a low-cost risc chip.
I agree , this is loser shit. People worked very hard on games like FF8 and its dirt cheap. I agree with the whole anti-copyright movement, but game developers are simply a different genre.
I don't think your arguments hold any water. To say that , "well we can't find evidence for evolution in the fossil record because it's not easy" is a very poor argument. Perhaps you should do some research as well.
Again it happened. The guy pointed out several facts from the fossil record, and the above poster retorted "There's tons of evidence" and ended his rant with "See what happens when you mix LSD with church?". Simply because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he is nuts or drugged up. I am not a creationist, but this guy has brought up some valid points, punctuated equilibrium seems more like a cop out then anything else.
Do us all a favor then, SHUT UP. All you are doing is making yourself look like an idiot. First research, then post, but don't read a few lines and post crap, be an original ac.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't debate the observed data, but I'm betting this guy is a little short of a full picnic basket. Anyone who refers to himself extensively in the 3rd person and isn't famous might want to re-evaluate their opinion of themselves. Hell, even superstars sound like fools when they do it. I particularly enjoyed when Hoagland referenced his own work as, 'Hoagland's "magnum opus".' Nice touch.
And we only have data to compare against for most of this information for what, the past 30 or 40 years, tops. Before making assumptions about the "insanity" of the action, we might want to consider our perspective on the data. I'm reminded of the story about the blind men and the elephant.
First off, my position: I don't watch Enterprise but don't want to see it cancelled, either. It would just get replaced with something worse. And I have heard that the story arc is getting better, which is what really needs to happen.
But...
It just seems so mean-spirited to wish for a show's cancellation-- over a hundred people lose their jobs as a result, and I'm not talking about high-paid actors, I'm talking about camera men, editors, janitors-- normal people.
I have to disagree on this. Charity is no reason to argue for a show to continue. Using that logic, no show, no matter how bad, would ever be canned. And, should Enterprise be cancelled, then another show would take it's place, hiring back on cameramen, editors, etc., if not the same, then ones who were out-of-work before.
Anyway, they're union and typically have better safety nets than those of us in the tech world. Which begs the question, why do they need unions and we don't? Should we have unions or should they not?
The cycling option isn't helped by the portion of the cycling population who follow traffic laws only when convenient for them.
I live in CA and several of the guys in my office bike to work. I've seen them on the road and they follow the law. However, I hear them complain and regularly see other cyclists alternately following traffic law, pedestrian law, or no law whatsoever. For example, this week I saw a cyclist get into the left lane behind some other cars and the light turned red. Instead of acting like a vehicle and waiting out the light, he pulled around the cars, swerved into the crosswalk and used it, then the next crosswalk, to make a left, all against the lights (both traffic & pedestrian). Would this be tolerated if it was done by a car, or even motorcycle? But on a bike, it's commonplace.
With a portion of the population haphazardly following laws, and seemingly little police enforcement (I've never seen one of the 100s of Mountain View police pull over a bike), anyone riding in a car, looking out the window considering a bike is much less likely to make the transition when they see cyclists dodging through traffic and hopping curbs, 250lb unarmored ants among 3000lb sport utility vehicles.
Gunslinger - The responding arguments seem based on condescension; by trying to establish the opposing viewpoint as inept or stupid, you free yourself from having to address the actual point. When you do address a point, I noticed that you selectively interpret the meaning of statements to match your arguments, or confuse prior mocking on your part with statements made by me.
For example, on the topic of profit, you are absolutely correct that corporations and such are driven by profits. You'll note that you even quote me as such when I wrote, "Yes, both companies exist to make a profit, but companies differ in how they go about [it]...". Yet at the end of your post, you dedicate an entire paragraph to disassembling an implied argument by me that corporations exist for some reason other than profit. (Non-profits presumbly excluded from both our generalizations.) You suggest I thought Saturn was doing it because they felt sorry for car buyers, when in my original post I wrote, "[branding] is an important tool in how a company makes the aforementioned profit" So you have fabricated a position for me, and successfully (and condescendingly) contested it.
Next, an example of selective interpretation. The preceding argument--when referring back to your original quote--is the first sentence in the below quote:
There are NO differences between the companies as far as "caring about gamers" is concerned. Both exist to make a profit. Period. Several people I know are big independent ATI developers. ATI provides them with code samples, driver updates, etc.. gratis.
You identify "gamers" as the topic, yet bring up developers. If you meant developers, then quote the appropriate section. Yes, the parent refers to both, yet you choose one, then mid-way select a new subject to allow you to provide more argument material.
Regardless, you do not prove that there are similarities between nVidia & ATI's relationship with developers as you offer "free code samples, driver updates, etc...." as proof while failing to address any specific issues such as stratjakt's criticisms of game anomolies, poor textures, etc. (In fact, it seems to support stratjakt's argument about lip-service.) Instead, it appears to be a case of an opportunity to name-drop, again following a policy of establishing superiority in the argument not by means of addressing the argument, but by demonstrating your relationship with ATI developers (which, btw, weakens your argument as it implies you might be part of the so-called rabid fan-base you reference).
In short, the original post you made and your subsequent response to me demonstrate the following shortcomings:
This is a poor method of debate and it reads that, in this case, your pride demanded a response over substance.
Regarding Gunslinger's post...
There are NO differences between the companies as far as "caring about gamers" is concerned. Both exist to make a profit. Period.
That is an awfully narrow view of the business world. Yes, both companies exist to make a profit, but companies can differ in how they go about trying to make a profit both in the products they make and in how they sell them. Call it marketing, brand positioning, whatever, it exists.
To take your auto example of Ford vs. Chevy...you might recall in the 90's a new brand called Saturn carved out a healthy market share by making average cars but selling them by "caring about the buyers." They instituted friendly dealerships with no-haggle pricing and a small company feel. They created a distinction by adjusting how they presented themselves to their buyers. It is an important tool in how a company makes the aforementioned profit; to reduce a company's position on brand position to "they're making a profit" is a short-sighted and dangerous generalization.
Furthermore, your points about ATI providing code samples, driver updates, etc., and references to acquantainces who are big independent ATI developers has nothing to do with your preceding argument. They are developers, a very different market than the actual consumers (gamers). They, too, are in it for a profit, and ATI needs to establish a different relationship with them. You might as well argue that you don't like the taste of oranges because the farmers who grow them get free Dole t-shirts.
partial agreement. the one-sided political brainwashing of children is certainly unfair; i questioned and disliked my teachers who tried it. (incidentally, that it will probably happen from parents if not outside sources is also a given. we shouldn't be so quick to point out schools and tvs as the sole culprits, but recognize many parents' lack of attention to this, as well.)
/.'s typical fare, i am surprised you did not mention this.
back to the point--i think you are confusing issues.
the tesla activism is hardly a political campaign on level with blinded letter-writing like the 'save the rainforest' one you mentioned. the tesla issue is not an existing multimillion $ campaign but rather one started at the classroom level. taken ad nauseam, one might argue that pen pal programs are despicable because they force children into writing letters without properly explaining the potential grief of unanswered letters, false joy in respondents, and broken friendships. clearly there is a distinction between extremes and, in my opinion, the tesla campaign falls within reason.
why? getting back to your point regarding failing to present both sides of the issue--i'm curious. what makes you certain that this teacher hasn't? after reading his pages, he seems to have followed a reasonable path over at least 10 years. furthermore, it seems this level of dispute with the smithsonian is a more recent development. his students (hopefully still not the same 3rd grade class as 1989, hehe) were probably not subjected to a fierce pro-tesla campaign from the start, but rather started with a class lesson on tesla and grew with the teacher through a logical course of events. i *am* concerned the younger students will miss out on the progression that led up to this point, seeing only the one side now presented. but i think that the persistence, the respect for history, and the desire to see fair recognition for a man's accomplishments (quite obviously not being done) are all very worthy causes for this campaign.
and, even if i am wrong, the intelligent students in the class will, like you and i did with our teachers, take more away from this than the teacher put in.
and, finally, a bit of sarcasm (because it wouldn't be a post without it)...
keep in mind that a possible reason for keeping tesla out, besides "lacking in theory", is because there are no giant electric, sponsorship-offering, companies bearing his name. given
after all, wagner does point out that the smithsonian did refuse to credit the wright brothers until after both of their deaths. why? allegedly because the head of the smithsonian had failed in his own attempt to build a flying contraption.
maybe *gasp* the faculties of yale, princeton, mit and harvard might know more than a couple of biased secretaries at the smithsonian?
PC mag I think it was? Anyway , the article talked about Linus' super secret company , Transmeta, there are rumors that they are making a low-cost risc chip.
I agree , this is loser shit. People worked
very hard on games like FF8 and its dirt cheap. I agree with the whole anti-copyright movement, but game developers are simply a different genre.
ROFL
I don't think your arguments hold any water. To say that , "well we can't find evidence for evolution in the fossil record because it's not easy" is a very poor argument. Perhaps you should do some research as well.
"Why should the public not be protected from misleading advice - be it from bad lawyer or a bad law package?"
The day I let the government make laws concerning what I should or should not read because of "protection" is the day I move.
I have done some research and this is what I have come up with.
Basic Creationist Tenet:
The earth is 10000 years old
Refutation:(one of at least)
Astronomy and Big Bang theory have prooven that
the universe is >= 18 billion years old
Basic Evolution Tenet:
Man has evolved from a
one-celled organism
Refutation:(one of at least)
Fossil Record shows fully formed species
Conclusion:
Noone knows what the FUCK is going on.
Thank you
Again it happened. The guy pointed out several facts from the fossil record, and the above poster retorted "There's tons of evidence" and ended his rant with "See what happens when you mix LSD with church?". Simply because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean he is nuts or drugged up. I am not a creationist, but this guy has brought up some valid points, punctuated equilibrium seems more like a cop out then anything else.
It's not a confession it's a fact, AC's never read or reasearch before they post.It's a fascinating phenomenon
One of them is patience, untill it becomes THE business model.
Nope. The difference is, Linux is innovating, Microsoft is actively using illegal monopolistic techniques to destroy competition.
Do us all a favor then, SHUT UP. All you are doing is making yourself look like an idiot. First research, then post, but don't read a few lines and post crap, be an original ac.
I don't know if Microsoft will fall , but I know it will never be the same again.
revelations foretold this would happen "bearing the mark of the beast in their forehead or right hand)". The bible is true!
How about software made in Finland *wink*
I don't know if "fairly certain there is another hardware player" constitutes an argument.
I could have sworn that FP had a something like this for Linux.