Re: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Copyright and Patent Law?
"Twisted" <twisted0n3@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185858186.380786.242390@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 1:20 pm, "Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote:
[snip a whole lot of BS]
Aww, crap. Did you have to!?
Here we go again...
An alternative, yes. A perfect one, no.
So there we go. Software does not need to be 100% compatible in
order
to be an alternative.
This is entirely beside my point.
But it is not entirely besides mine.
Believe it or not, some commercial games are genuinely good, and win
attention via that merit.
Believe it or not, some free games are genuinely good,
[...]
I never said otherwise.
Your before-last assertion, "and there'd be plenty of high quality
ones", I disagree with.
Without evidence.
You've snipped too much, and we've lost the context. Plenty of
high-quality what?
List some of them, so that I may play them.
I don't have a big off-the-top-of-my-head list; GIYF, so JFGI.
My claim is that there are no free games which are as good as the top
notch commercial games. Your claim is that there are. I'm asking you to
list a couple as evidence, and you're asking me to find them myself. Is
this a fair summary of what just happened here?
There is no evidence that this would happen and plenty of reasons to
believe it wouldn't, and high quality games would continue to be
produced.
There is also plenty of reasons to believe it would.
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing will you? This is ludicrous.
"This should never be done because I think something bad might happen,
even though I have no evidence at all to suggest such a thing" is not
a sensible way to decide matters of policy. It certainly doesn't
outweigh "This should be done because it is provable that X, Y, and Z
will all happen, and those are all good things, and nobody has proven
anything bad will happen, let alone enough to outweigh X, Y, *and* Z
together."
You claim that you've *proven* that good things will happen if we
eliminate IP, and that *nobody* has proven bad things will happen if we
eliminate IP? I think you and I have a different definition of "proven";
either that, or you're not holding your own proofs to the same standards
that you expect from others.
And even if you were RIGHT -- is losing (or maybe just delaying) the
top tier of games -- GAMES -- too high a price for society to pay for
much greater freedom, much reduced costs of living, much richer
culture generally, and much more innovation in productive technology?
False dilema fallacy: You're acting as if we can only have one or
the
other.
What the fuck are you babbling about now? Either we have those
freedoms through the removal of so-called IP law, or we don't.
It sounds like you haven't considered the possibility of having
freedom via something other than the complete removal of IP laws.
If we
do, it may be that we lose or delay the creme-de-la-creme of games,
although I personally think it not especially likely. And then the
question is, is that one thing -- slower release of computer games --
a good reason to give up lots of possible freedoms? I'd argue that the
answer is no.
There is no fallacy there unless you're suggesting either that we can
have those freedoms and IP law too (we can't) or that we can have
those freedoms and top-tier games too (in which case you're actually
CONCEDING my point there, and I win!)
You've already won, remember?
Most games don't have much replay value and are only interesting
within 1 year of their release. We agree that 60 years of copyright (or
whatever it currently is in your country) is "bad". I claim that 0
years
of copyright is bad.
I dispute your claim that 0 is bad. Even 1 year loses us all sorts of
freedoms with our things and our technology. Even 1 DAY does that;
justifies intrusive DRM and private attempts at enforcement.
I think you falsely assume that IP justifies intrusive DRM.
[...]
And people have done all of those things to top notch quality too.
*I*
have done top notch level design AND art asset design PERSONALLY.
Link to them, please.
I'm not sure they're currently hosted anywhere; good, stable hosting
is so hard to find these days. There are references though; google
"twq3tourney2" and "twq3tourney3" and there are references and
screenshots in one or two places.
Using the search terms you provided, there's only 1 screenshot, and
it's 150x113 pixels, which makes it difficult to get an idea of the
quality:
http://www.serverspy.net/bin/map.mpl?m=twq3tourney2&g=2
Yes, but they tend to be worse than their commercial equivalents.
Ignore the ones a commercial entity would never publish and compare
only the rest. You'll find they're on a par, and that there are plenty
of free ones.
So "get rid of all the crappy free games, and you'll find that the
ratio of crappy free games to good free games (which is now 0:1) is now on
par with the ratio of crappy to good commercial games"?
Note that I wasn't talking about ratios, but absolute quality of
games. Getting rid of crappy free games does not magically make the good
free games become better.
Show me a free game which is "on par" with any of: Assassin's Creed,
Metal Gear Solid 4, Crysis, Bioshock, etc.
Not a one of the talents you just listed is precluded by a game not
being a commercial one with a business model dependent on restricting
copying. NOT A ONE.
I did not claim they were precluded. I'm saying that level design
is
not enough. I'm saying a LOT of talent is needed to make a good game.
And top-notch examples ALL of those talents can be found in free game
content and free game engines. Not just level design. I said that
already but obviously you didn't want to hear it, but it bears
repeating even if you are simply going to ignore it again as
unpalatable.
And I've already explained to you that there existing a handful of
person who published a handful of quality work for free in each of this
domain does not necessarily imply that these people will all get together
and make a good game. I've also explained to you that having money
involved greatly increases the probability that talented people will
actually get together and go through with producing a good game.
If you're still having trouble understanding my point, consider this:
You've claimed that you are a top notch level designer, and I think you
mentioned some other forms of art (texturing? I don't recall). So now, try
to find a talented programmer, a talented musician, a talented modeller, a
talented animator, and so on, and produce a game that is "on par" with the
commercial games that are being released today. Produce that game and
release it for free. See how far you get.
There are two possible outcomes this experiment will have:
(1) You actually do produce a really good game for free, and I will
find myself to be mistaken about a couple of my beliefs.
(2) You fail to produce a really good game for free, and hopefully you
will now gain some insight into the issue, and perhaps realize that it's
not quite as easy to get talented people to work together as you initially
imagined.
[...]
Every mod that had quality comparable to a commercial
game was for the engine of a commercial game: Counterstrike came from
HalfLife; ET came from Castle Wolfenstein.
You're forgetting Nehahra, whose engine was based off a very old Quake
engine and probably largely rewritten. That's an engine of far greater
quality than any commercial engine it can claim as an ancestor.
Nehara is not a mod, and so I didn't forget it. In fact, you will have
seen that I mentioned it in the next few paragraphs.
[snip straw-man argument implying the ludicrous claim that the only
type of game that would survive the abolition of copyright would be
that exemplified by Nethack and online Flash games]
I ask you to list a free game comparable to the top notch commercial
games, and I warned you that "Nethack" and the online Flash games are not
comparable to top notch commercial games. So far, you have failed to name
any such free games.
Nehahra is not comparable to today's commercial games.
It's comparable to commercial cames made in the same time period.
Comparing an older free game with commercial games made for and
running on hardware six years more advanced is an obvious case of
cheating. :P
Nehahra is currently under active development.
http://nehahra.planetquake.gamespy.com/nehindex.html
<quote>
May 19, 2006 - Development Underground
Nehahra development still continues but at a slow rate. We'll release it
when it's finished. Life and work, these things continue to intrude.
Luckily, for those of you interested, we long passed the point of no
return. However, there will be no further updates until release is
imminent.
</quote>
In other words, the Nehahra engine is a 2006-2008 engine, and thus should
be compared to other engines developed in 2006-2008.
Here are screenshots from Nehahra, selectively chosen by the developers of
the engine as being the very best screenshots they've got, to maximally
demonstrate the power of their engine:
http://nehahra.planetquake.gamespy.com/xscreens.html
Here are screenshots from Crysis, another game engine also developers in
2006-2008:
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_incgallery&Itemid=29
Nehara is not comparable to commercial games developed during the same
time period.
[snip nonsense]
I am giving your game every possible advantage I can, and it is
still
losing.
IYHO. You may be comparing apples and oranges. Do they look good? Yes
-- both. Do they look the same? Of course not. So what?
You keep snipping my URLs as if they embarrass you. I agree with you
that they do not look the same. I stress that the Quake 3 screenshots look
significantly better than Tenebrae screenshots.
I agree with you that I'm comparing apples and oranges: What you're
essentially saying is that the free game engine Tenebrae is not comparable
with Quake 3. I fully agree with that. Quake 3 is much, much better.
Here are the URLs again, so that each individual reader of this thread
may judge for themselves which engine looks better.
<quote>
The screenshots I posted for Tenebrae were from the project's
homepage's gallery. That is, these are THE BEST screenshots that the
developers of Tenebrae were able to generate. These are the screenshots
that the developers chose to showcase the strength of their engine.
http://www.tenebrae2.com/tb2_screenshots.html
Notice the URL? I even did you a favor and I'm comparing Tenebrae 2 to
Doom 3, instead of merely Tenebrae 1.
Contrast this with the screenshots I posted for Doom 3:
http://images.google.ca/images?q=doom%203
Look at the URL. This is a google image search. I am not picking the
screenshots; Google is.
In other words, I am comparing the ABSOLUTE best screenshots from the
*SEQUEL* to the game you are talking about, and I am comparing it to a
COMPLETELY RANDOM assortment of Doom 3 screenshots.
I am giving your game every possible advantage I can, and it is still
losing.
</quote>
When the companies make less money (and face it, putting ads in
games
generates a lot less income than selling the boxes)
But it's a damn sight more honest an income than selling the boxes for
3000 times what they cost to make!
A brand new top notch commercial game typically retails for $60. $60
divided by 3000 equals $0.02. I find it laughable that you think it costs
$0.02 to produce the boxes.
In your worst case scenario of no more commercial games, obviously
that talent would have nowhere to go but into free games, and free
games would improve to take up the slack.
Wrong. They could go into movies, or literary writing, or
business-software programming.
That might be true if you did something as stupid as to abolish video-
game copyrights only instead of all the copyrights. :P
It would also be true if you abolished all copyrights. Or perhaps you
have a different definition of "would have nowhere to go but into free
games" than I do? Is this another one of your idioms?
[...]
Right now, your video game $10 is split up something like this (it's
probably actually quite a lot worse, especially at high volumes, as
they keep raking it in per-copy and only pay most of these expenses
including the talent salaries once):
$0.10 paying the talent.
$0.01 towards paying off the ludicrous royalties on the game company's
development tools, as artificial-scarcity pinch has been passed on to
them by their suppliers.
$0.04 pays operating expenses and the like
$0.10 pays for annoying advertisements you have to tune out while
trying to surf the web, watch your favorite show, or whatever.
$0.10 pays for distribution costs, disc-stamping, and the like
$0.70 tax
$9.00 is the profit, so lines the pockets of executives.
Please cite where you got these figures (and note that even these
figures you've given contradict your claim of "selling the boxes for 3000
times what they cost to make!").
[...]
I'm saying "Windows IS NOT indispensible".
Then you are claiming that if every copy of Windows out there
mysteriously transmogrified into a Red Hat install overnight, it
wouldn't cause more than a bit of bafflement and retraining, rather
than just about everything grinding to a halt.
Strawman, taking the statement out of context. You claimed everyone
*had* to pay Microsoft because everyone *must* buy a copy of Windows
because it is indispensible. I claimed that this is simply not true, and I
told you to go to comp.os.linux.advocacy as evidence of people who are
able to survive without ever purchasing a copy of Windows, thus showing
Windows is not indispensible.
[...]
That you continue to profess the
ludicrous belief that Bill Gates somehow is owed a single red cent
more by any user of Windows or of any other software, no matter how
many future copies might (at no cost to Bill Gates I might add!) be
made, simply beggars belief, yet here you are.
Strawman, I don't claim Bill Gates is owed anything.
When I buy a Microsoft product, I don't say to myself "Wait a
minute.
I'm just handing my money over to the richest guy in the world, and he
doesn't need any more money, so really, I shouldn't buy this product at
all!"
When the government continues to enforce a copyright on a Microsoft
product, it is basically saying (and enforcing) that making more
copies still entitles Bill to more money despite the sheer lack of any
compelling public interest in further enriching the man.
You seem to be confusing Bill Gates (the person) with Microsoft (the
corporation). I've tried to warn you about anthropormophizing corporations
and how it'd would end up confusing you.
I don't think the government does (or "should") treat Microsoft any
differently from any other corporation. If the laws are such that
copyright need be enforced, then it should be enforced for Microsoft
products just as much as it might be enforced for any other corporations.
How "rich" a corporation is should not be a factor in whether or not the
government helps protect their IP.
Again, it seems you're resenting Bill Gates for being rich, and using
this resentment to try to change laws, changes which will probably not
change the fact that Bill Gates is richer than you are. If your goals are
to make Bill Gates poor, abolishing copyright is not the way to go. If
your goal is not to make Bill Gates poor, then why are you even bringing
this off-topic stuff up?
Stuff like "I shouldn't have to pay Microsoft in order to use
applications which require Microsoft Windows". A lot of minor stuff
like
that, that is hardly worth even remembering.
No, the point I was trying to make, but which is too sensible to ever
avoid flying right over your head, is that there should not BE any
applications that REQUIRE Windows.
Well, being a "should" statement, I have no comment on it. I
acknowledge that this is how you wish the world is. Shall we move on?
Term length reductions might even be subject to loopholes,
for example game's copyright running out so release a mandatory update
-- don't let the auth servers auth anyone to play who doesn't have it
-- and copyright the update => another year of raking in free money!
Notice that with your least unreasonable business model (subscription
based games), you are guaranteed that the auth server won't allow anyone
to play unless they pay more money. So at worst, my term length reduction
plan is as bad as your plan, and there's a good chance it's better.
Yes, this is actually a topic that was brought up in my discussion
with my friends. We found that at the very least, Trademark, as you
say,
would probably need to stay. Otherwise it would be legal for me to sell
snuff-bestiality-porn in a DVD box that looks identical to "Disney's
Snow
White And the Seven Dwarves", since Disney no longer owns the term
"Disney", nor the particular font or style of writing the text
"Disney's
Snow White And the Seven Dwarves", nor the pictures of that appear on
those boxes, etc.
Trademark isn't urgently in need of being destroyed but it does need
to be brought down to earth. On the other hand I can see getting rid
of it entirely, perhaps by making misrepresenting stuff in product
labeling be considered full-blown fraud and prosecuted as such, rather
than using existing wimpy truth-in-advertising laws.
Unenforceable, I think. Let's say my porn video is about a person
named Snow White and and includes seven dwarves, which justifies my
labelling it "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves", and the name of my porn
company is "Disney". If you're going to say "Well, you can't name your
porn company 'Disney' because it could be confuse with the other 'Disney'
which produces family-friendly movies", then you might as well just stick
with Trademark, since you're recreating it in all but name.
This somewhat
levels the playing field -- it is in the hands of the criminal justice
system and cases would generally be brought by the AG and their crack
legal team on behalf of aggrieved consumers, rather than a) up-front
fees to register marks and b) civil "let the most expensive legal team
win!" lawsuits that clearly stack the odds in favor of big business
over either small and medium businesses or aggrieved consumers.
I think it's naive to believe that "the most expensive legal team win"
doesn't occur in criminal cases, and only occurs in civil ones.
Clearly, such things would be "bad" for society. This,
incidentally,
was one of the reasons I felt "zero IP" was a bad idea. I'm glad you
are
no longer advocating zero IP.
I don't consider trademarks, once rationalized, to be real IP.
So in other words, we are in agreement, but we just had different
definition of "IP".
[...]
What you've presented here is strategy (e.g. let's not make the
change
suddenly, but phase it out over 10 years) and speculation (in the end,
everyone will have 3 day workweeks). You've not presented evidence.
You've not presented evidence that the world after such a 2012 will be
shitty and no longer have games as good as counterstrike being made.
Well, no one has asked me to yet. ;)
So I think we're even there.
We're not even; you've won, remember?
[...]
And yet I seem to have released more into the public domain than
you
have. Does this mean I'm a stronger advocate for the reduction of
copyright than you are? Do you see now that I am not a "Microsoft
employee", or a "middle man, following orders", or whatever other
accusations you've thrown at me so far?
I don't know what the hell you are. I think you act like or pretend to
be whatever suits you. You're a debating chameleon -- you assume any
position you like and appear to be anything that has a vested interest
in that position winning; then you change, even in the middle of the
same debate; and change again...
I don't think I've ever changed my position in this particular debate
(e.g. I started off, always was, and still am of the idea that zero IP is
a bad idea, I started off, always was, and still am of the idea that Vista
does not objectively suck, etc.)
I think you just occasionally make false assumptions about my
position. For example, because I think zero IP is a bad idea, perhaps you
assume that I think lot and lots of IP is a great idea. Or because I think
Vista does not objectively suck, perhaps you assume that I think Vista is
objectively great. Don't make these assumptions, as you'll only end up
confused when they turn out to be false.
Earlier, you said 1 in 10, and then you said every single time. Now
it's 1 in 50 or 60?
I never said 1 in 10, and I said it does it every single time in list
(and I believe details) view. It's quite random and sporadic in icons
and tiles view; just TRY IT AND SEE. It should happen eventually.
Tried it twice in List view, and could not reproduce the bug. So it's
not "every single time" on this side. Have you considered posting a video
demonstrating the bug?
It depends on a lot of things, actually, and I think we may be
beginning to stretch the analogy too far. If a EULA really did pop up
when
I tried to open the can, we'd probably be in some sort of super high
tech
society where it's plausible that the can itself is monitoring me,
perhaps
sending a live video feed of my actions to some corporations. I'd
behave
differently in that society than I would in the one where I currently
live.
How you'd behave is immaterial. It's whether such behavior by the soft
drink manufacturer strikes you as at all legitimate, whether it's at
all true that current law could reasonably consider this hypothetical
EULA to be binding on the drink-purchaser, and whether it is in the
public interest for law enforcement to provide remedies for the soft
drink manufacturer if you violate the questionable "agreement" or
dodge it by puncturing the can or whatever.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3A+legitimate
Legitimate means "In accordance with the law", so if the laws of the
hypothetical world we were in said that softdrink cans were allowed to do
that, then yes, it'd be legitimate.
In other words, I think "legitimate" is not the word you intended.
Hmmm... I must be really dense, because I still don't see the
answer
to my question. If you sign a document, and there is no one to witness
you
signing the document, do you consider the document to be worthless?
I answered that already. This is a paper document you sign, and the
company gets to keep a copy. Later they can produce it in court as
evidence that you entered into a binding agreement with them, if they
want to sue you for breach of contract.
So yes.
"Yes, the document is worthless", you say. How do you reconcile that
view with all the documents you need to fill out for which there are not
witnesses, such as filing an income tax return?
[...]
Nice try with the weasel words, but no cigar. You can believe with
all
your heart that I'm an idiot or consider it "merely your opinion"
that
I'm nuts, and if you call me an idiot or crazy in public it's still
insulting.
I've neither called you an idiot, nor crazy.
Maybe not, but you've sometimes implied it.
You've explicitly called me an idiot and crazy. How do you justify
that? It's because you believe that my beliefs and statements are that of
an idiot and a crazy person, yes?
Well, I did not ever say you were an idiot, nor that you were crazy. I
simply responded to your arguments, and from reading these responses,
you've inferred yourself to be an idiot and/or crazy.
I am not trying to make you sound like an idiot or crazy, but I cannot
control what you write.
Either provide a plausible alternative theory for what happened or
agree.
<shrugs> No. I don't have to do what you tell me to do.
Cop-out.
I'm reminded of the common middle-school tactic of calling someone a
"chicken" in order to get them to do something they might otherwise not
wish to do.
You should certainly be interested in it now, because the
censor has broadened his horizons somewhat. This posting of yours
that
I'm replying to? It got attacked in precisely the same way as my last
TWO postings to this branch of the thread (yes, it's now TWO, THREE
if
you count the repost attempt of the first one separately, and so a
total of FOUR separate messages, three by me and one by you).
I don't really care, because for the most part, my reply is direct
at
you, and given that you've replied to it, you've read it. It doesn't
bother me whether or not anyone else in the world can see my messages.
I'm
not posting here to try to persuade people towards my position.
Why ARE you posting here, then? Not to persuade other people, you
claim. Obviously not to persuade me, which you must have realized by
now is futile since it takes actual evidence to persuade me and you
clearly have none.
I've already explained to you why I am posting: to get clarifications
about your beliefs from you. As long as *you* are able to read my posts
and I am able to read your replies, I am satisfied.
BTW, my previous posting was again subjected to restricted
propagation, as was your most recent posting. That makes two of yours
now. How soon will you become incensed that someone is restricting the
distribution of your own postings without cause?
It may be a while...
It's damned rude of
them to decide on your behalf how far you want your message
distributed, is it not? And when it's posted to an unmoderated group,
to boot!
I guess you're assuming someone is intentionally doing this, and I'm
assuming that's just how USENET works.
[...]
But that requires special equipment and expertise, and is difficult
and dangerous.
Really? All I have to do is hit DEL when my computer boots up, and
I'm
dumped into the motherboard setup screen. It'll say something like the
frontbuss is currently set to 233Mhz (for example), and allow me to
bump
it up to 300Mhz in increments in 1Mhz.
That's the bus speed, not the CPU speed, you n00b. Two different
things. (A clue: typical CPU speeds these days are measured in GHz.)
http://www.basichardware.com/how_to_overclock.html
<quote>
First consider your default speed. For simplicity, lets say it's 1 GHz. If
this is an Athlon processor, it would most likely be running at the 133
MHz bus speed with a multiplier of 7.5 (100x7.5 = 1000 MHz = 1 GHz) or at
the 100 MHz bus speed and multiplier of 10 (10x100 = 1000). Let's use the
latter instance as an example - 100 MHz bus and 10 multiplier.
[...]
If you wanted to increase the bus speed and the motherboard supported the
higher MHz bus speeds, you could do something like 10x120 for 1200 MHz.
Calculate your new speed by multiplying the bus speed by your CPU's
multiplier.
</quote>
I guess you've never overclocked before.
Can you overclock THE CPU by fiddling in your BIOS?
Yes, and I explained to you how in the previous post.
And can you do any
of this in such a way that you can easily back out a change that has a
deleterious effect, without lasting damage to your hardware or to your
data?
Technically speaking, simply powering your computer on causes "lasting
damage" (although it's very minute damage). But I'm going to assume you
malphrased the question and so I'll answer "Yes". As a beginner, you'll
probably want to do a lot of reading on overclocking before you try it for
the first time, though, because if you "do it wrong", there is a chance of
completely frying your CPU, and possibly the motherboard along with it.
That is essentially what happens now, with the exception of when
there's a demand for slower chips, and Intel has an excess of faster
chip,
Intel may downclock the chip and sell it as if it were a slower chip.
(If
there is no such excess of faster chips, then Intel may just say
"Sorry,
there's a shortage right now. Try again later.")
Why not just NOT downclock the chip and sell it at the slower-chip
price? A faster chip is a perfectly good substitute for a slower chip.
Factually false (unless that chip is downclocked). Some software
relies on the chip running at a specific speed to operate correctly. If
someone orders a 1.5Ghz chip and receives a 2.0Ghz chip instead, most such
"someones" will be happy, but there exists some which will be very upset.
It's safer from a customer satisfaction, legal, etc. standpoint to
just sell the customer exactly what they ordered.
Or perhaps you have a different definition of "perfectly good
substitute" than I do?
Okay. A friend of mine named Patrick Wong (no relation).
And he is an expert because?
He's an "expert" in the same sense that most computer enthusiasts
are
experts: They typically know more about computers, and thus OSes, than
the
general public.
Let me guess -- he's a big Windows enthusiast but has no real concept
of anything else.
Incorrect.
IOW, a biased source. Or maybe easily swayed by eye
candy. Anyway, VISTA IS WORSE:
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
Stick THAT in your fucking pipe and smoke it wisearse!
What's with the excited, agitated tone and vulgar language?
BTW, I find it amusing you complain of a biased source, and then post
a link to the FreeSoftwareFoundation's criticism of a Microsoft product.
Vista is worse than Windows XP. It can not do as much as well, on
average. It is full of nastiness meant to enrich MS. It constitutes
spyware, indeed appears to be the largest piece of spyware software in
history, and one of the first shrink-wrapped pieces of spyware, where
the main danger used to be exclusively free online downloads of
dubious software from dubious sites and online browser exploits. And
there's the DRM ... the poorer performance ... the likelihood of lots
of incompatibilities with your existing hardware and software ...
No rational utilitarian migrates from XP SP2 to Vista or from anything
else to Vista for that matter. Not on a production machine.
I disagree. ;)
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars
It sucks, but it's pretty -- therefore it still sucks.
I guess you didn't even follow the link, despite having asked me to
post such an article. I find that somewhat rude on your part. If you read
the headline, it says: "Windows Vista: more than just a pretty face". I
guess you didn't even get that far.
In the light of these difficulties, many people wrote Vista off.
Aha! There were "difficulties".
Aha! This is a balanced and fair review of Vista, and not just glowing
praise sponsored by Microsoft themselves!
Even after the false starts and scaled-back plans
Aha! There were MAJOR difficulties.
Aha! This is a VERY balanced and fair review of Vista, and not just
glowing praise sponsored by Microsoft themselves!
Vista is still a huge evolution in the history of the
NT platform, and that's not something to be sniffed at. The fundamental
changes to the platform are of a scale not seen since the release of
NT.
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is a huge evolution in the
history of the staph aureus "platform" and is definitely not something
to be sniffed at, not unless you want to start sneezing and then drop
dead despite being given massive doses of antibiotics. :P
That something has had "fundamental changes" does not make it
automatically good, or even anything you want to touch with a ten-foot
pole.
And fundamental changes is not automatically bad either. You have to
actually read the article to find out which one they intended (but I'll
give you a hint: they think Vista is good).
In the following pages, I'll be talking about these big new
features-the
graphics stack and the new APIs-and why they're so important for the
Windows platform.
Because no matter its deep-seated faults and unfixable performance
issues, a little eye candy is all it takes to magically make it a
machine offering superior productivity for all of your practical needs
once more. :P
In addition to these revolutionary features, Vista
includes a host of evolutionary improvements that together make it a
hugely compelling release
This is either Microsoft, or someone copying wholesale from MS ad
copy. No self respecting independent reviewer uses marketroid language
like the above paragraph! It's revolting! It's sugary filling and no
substance; self-serving (well Microsoft-serving) praise with no
evidence to support it; it's about as far from proper investigative
journalism as it's possible to get without going to the extremes
epitomized famously by sentence "You take the pictures; I'll furnish
the war". :P
You may say that, but you claimed there did not exist any professional
blogger who liked Vista, and I gave you a counter example.
No; only Vista objectively sucking is evidence that Vista objectively
sucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument
That's like arguing that my claim that the ketchup is red because,
well, it's red is circular. Maybe it is, but that's simply because
it's a pretty much fundamentally true thing you can't divide much
deeper. It's self-evident except of course to the red-green
colorblind.
If you claim "Ketchup is red because it's red", then yes, that is a
circular claim. And while the fact that kechup *IS* red may be
self-evident to non-colour blind people, *WHY* it is red is not
necessarily self-evident. For example, some people might falsely assume
that it is red because it contains tomato, but this typically an incorrect
belief. Most ketchup solutions (for example Heinz's) contains food
coloring to make it red.
[...]
Yes, that would qualify if it were true that Vista can't do
anything
XP can't do faster, cheaper and better. Luckily, it isn't.
Games again. You a hardcore gamer? You say copyright law is good
because abolishing it would make everything else better but make all
the games suck.
Strawman: I didn't say copyright law is good.
You say Vista is better than XP because although XP
does everything else better it won't run a handful of Vista-only
games.
Stawman: I didn't say Vista is better than XP.
I don't think that it is sound public policy for our government to
base its laws and enforcement activities around what's good for
hardcore gamers, any more than if you substituted any other small
minority for "hardcore gamers" there.
Thing is, if Vista rocks and XP sucks because of gamers, and copyright
law rocks because of gamers, then lynchings rock because of Klansmen,
and so does abolishing civil rights, and blowing up tall buildings
rocks because of the minority of Al Qaeda sympathizers among us, and
so forth. Your argument leads to a very dangerous place!
Ah, I was wondering when you would come to this strategy. "I know;
I'll accuse Oliver of being a terrorist. That'll probably help strenghten
my arguments!"
BTW, there's more than one game which is Vista only. DirectX 10
itself
is Vista only, and there's a good handful of games coming out which are
DX10 only, with more coming along the way.
How many now?
That's like asking how many games will come out in 2008. I don't know,
and probably nobody else does either. But if you want evidence that
there's more than one, I can supply it by naming two: Halo 3 and Crysis.
[...]
Because you asked me to. When you say things like "Please show me
an
expert who likes Vista", if it isn't too much trouble for me, I'll do
it.
I'm nice like that.
You're supposed to come up empty handed, numbskull.
Oh. So when you ask me for proof, you're actually hoping I don't come
up with any proof so that you can feel good about yourself? Sorry.
Otherwise, what possible evidence can I produce that will
demonstrate
to you that I really do like Vista? I cannot display the contents of my
mind, and you cannot read it.
You need to furnish evidence that Vista is the rational choice of a
utilitarian, rather than sticking with XP. So far you've failed
miserably.
I don't see how Vista being the choice of a utilitarian (any random
utilitarian?) would be evidence that I personally like Vista. I can embark
on the proof, if you wish, but I'd hate to do it and then have you say
"Well, that doesn't really prove that you actually like Vista anyway, so I
was just wasting your time".
Yes, it I *am* choosing not to do something (namely convince you of
my
position), and yes I do think that if I tried to convince you of my
position, that I would fail to do so. So what?
You're not even trying to defend your position.
I know. I've been telling you this repeatedly. I was wondering when
you would start to grasp this concept.
[...]
2+2 is 1 in these, true. 4 is also 1 in these, and so 2+2 is still 4.
There is no 4 in the ring of integers modulus 3, nor the trinary
integers.
There is if you define it to be 3+1,
If you did define 4 to be 3 + 1, then you'd no longer be in the ring
of integers modulus 3, nor the trinary integers.
as would be the standard
definition of 2, 3, 4 ... in a system (0 is the additive identity, 1
is the multiplicative identity, 2 is 1+1, 3 is 2+1, 4 is 3+1...). It
just happens that 4 = 1 in this ring, and doesn't ordinarily.
That's like saying "10 = 16". This is a false statement. What you
really meant is "10 in hexadecimal = 16 in decimal". You really shouldn't
be imprecise when dealing with mathematics. There is no "4" in the ring of
integers modulus 3. There is a "4" in decimal. You can create a mapping
from the decimal integers to the integers modulus 3, such that "4" maps
onto "1", but that does not mean there is an element "4" in the ring of
integers modulus 3.
There's also the little matter that one ordinarily is referring to the
normal integers and not some modular ring by default, unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
That's exactly my point. You seemed to assume that 2+2=4 is always
true, no matter what. I'm telling you it's truthfullness depends on some
assumptions and axioms, such as the assumption we're working with decimal
integers. Then you remember "Oh, right, yeah, there exists sytems where
2+2=4 is not true, but I wasn't thinking of those systems" which is
exactly what I was trying to point out to you.
You are too closed minded. You think if something is true for you, it
must be true for everyone. You think this even when presented with
evidence to the contrary.
The relevance is that it demonstrates a belief system in which
doing
public good is not necessarily a good thing.
Solipsism is prima facie evidence that someone is not a good candidate
for public office, so I daresay it is not relevant.
This thread wasn't about who is or is not a good candidate for public
office. It was about whether or not doing "public good" is necessarily a
"good thing". I claimed a lot of things were subjective, including the
concepts of "good" and "evil". Since you are disagreeing with me, I assume
you think the concepts of "good" and "evil" are objective.
Incidentally, this would explain why you get into so much conflict
with other people. Since you think "good" and "evil" are objective,
whenever someone does something you don't like, you figure they must be
objectively evil, and so you fail to communicate effectively with them.
I argue you are not qualified to judge whether an idiom is "of
widespread nature"
In general, no. When it's English, yes.
[snip list of countries]
Half of those are not English countries.
I listed the same countries you listed while trying to guess my
nationality (plus Canada, and minus US). That is to say: Canadian,
British, Australian, New Zealand, Chinese. Also, I'm curious as to how you
define "English countries". I'd assume it was something like "Countries
for which 'English' is one of the official languages".
Canada has English as an official language.
Britan has English as an official language.
Australia has English as an official language.
New Zealand has English as an official language.
China doesn't.
4 out of 5 sounds like more than "half" to me. Or do you have a
different definition of half than I do?
Of the ones that are, most
are much smaller than the US in population.
Oh, right. 'Cause the US is the final arbiter of what is or is not
English. I forgot.
English obviously not quite as strong as
you make it out to be and weak in areas native speakers have no
problems at all;
Most Canadians do not speak American English as well as Americans
do,
just like most Americans do not speak Canadian English as well as
Canadians do.
I'm fairly sure the idiom I used is not America-specific. It's
sufficiently generally English that your unfamiliarity with it points
to English not being your primary language.
<shrugs> If you say so.
I guess Internet service is better in Canada than where ever it is
you
live.
I don't think so. I checked, and Internet service in Canada is mostly
the usual pattern of phone/cable duopolies just as it is in the
states.
Ok. My only evidence is your surprise in the high quality of our
Internet service.
You still win the argument, by the way. Again, I don't really care
about "winning" or "losing" arguments. I argue to exchange information;
not to score points. So if winning makes you happy, then I declare you
the
winner, since it costs me nothing to do so.
I argue in the interests of bringing the light of truth and reason
into dark corners.
This surprises me, since you've used a lot of strawman and other
tactics I'd consider dishonest (e.g. associating me with terrorism).
[...]
This, by the way, is why I find it amusing when you insult my
reading
comprehension.
There's nothing amusing about it; it's frankly bad. You misunderstand
one out of every three things I say, by my estimate, and I'm writing
in plain English, not Cockney fucking rhyming slang or something!
Hmm... I wonder how many of the things I've said you've misunderstood.
For example, you seem to think that I like copyright.
That snuff-porn example mentioned above, which you seem to agree
with,
shows that trademark (which is a form of IP), might be a good idea.
Therefore, zero IP might be a bad idea.
I suggested alternatives even to trademark, and reasons why trademark
is entirely unlike IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Overview
<quote>
Intellectual property laws are designed to protect different forms of
subject matter, although in some cases there is a degree of overlap.
[...]
A trademark is a distinctive sign which is used to distinguish the
products or services of different businesses.
</quote>
Maybe this will help you understand: You do not need to even know
what
serotonin nor dopamine is, in order to understand the sentence "I
disagree
with it, but you win the argument". Hopefully this will help guide you
to
understanding the sentence.
Saying in the same sentence that I'm wrong and that I win the argument
is like capitulating a game of field hockey while believing the score
currently favors your team over mine, or maybe while simply accusing
me of cheating. It's somewhat insulting, and it's also just plain
nonsensical.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that I disagree with
you. There's a difference.
Now get thee hence to w3c.org and educate thyself on the many
differences between HTML, XML, and plain text.
Can you cite one particular difference that you think I am ignorant
of?
If your newsreader display bugs when it encounters the characters
"<"
or ">", then perhaps you should use a different newsreader, or report
bugs
to its author. This is a suggestion, not an order. I'm giving you this
suggestion to (marginally) improve the quality of your life. Feel free
to
ignore the suggestion.
It doesn't wig out; it just doesn't interpret the markup into whatever
kind of fancy nice rich-text display you had in mind.
I think you are assuming that I had some kind of fancy nice rich-text
display in mind.
I end up seeing
what looks like web page source
I suspect, then, that you saw exactly what I intended for you to see.
I never claimed that Vista smells like roses.
You're a literal-minded, obtuse, argumentative arsehole.
I find it amusing that you would call me names after making such a big
deal when you perceive other people to call you names.
And again, I am asking you what was the point of that example,
then,
if not to mislead its reader.
To inform, engage, and educate its reader, obviously.
If it wishes to inform the reader that the fact that "basketball is
'good'; therefore market competition is 'good'", then I think the authors
are not reliable source for logically coherent arguments.
If you reply, I will provide a P.O. box address to
which you may send U.S. money orders.
That was in response to a particular challenge nobody met the criteria
for, in case you'd forgotten.
What were the criteria? From what I understand, the only criteria was
to reply to the thread.
P.S. Recall your claim that IIS could not compete with Apache? It
looks like people are switching from Apache to IIS.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html
- Oliver