Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Why pick on Kent Hovind?

Posted on: August 6, 2009 - 5:50am

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Why pick on Kent Hovind?

Not that I like the guy or anything, but he seems to be the whipping boy for numerous websites. Even RRS has a top level link for him.

I know for certain that atheists think he has bad arguments, but that not all. Many Christians, even a large number of young earthers, think his arguments are bad. Answers in Genesis released a statement listing arguments not to use, many of which Kent Hovind uses.

Would it not be more profitable to discuss things written by WL Craig, NT Wright, or Doug Geivit, Paul Copan, or Alister McGrath? Anydanyway...whether I agree with these guys are not, there writings are certainly more stimulating.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 11, 2009 - 9:03am #51

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote: I can't even

Vastet wrote:

I can't even play Star Craft on it, so it's just collecting dust.

Dude....I could play starcraft on my ancient Pentium 120....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 11, 2009 - 10:16am #52

HisWillness

Posts: 4100

Joined: 2008-02-21

Offline

ubuntuAnyone wrote:In short,

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

In short, we don't want to actually do any work, We just want to talk about working.

I actually work from home, so this is my break from work.

*cricket*

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Early logic was, of course, seated in the basics of our physical world.

Transcendentalists think such things as logic are a priori, as we need logic abstract logic from the world. I have some sympathies towards Transcendentalism for this reason.

It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that there was discernment of things before we started discerning them. I'm not saying that the world isn't made out of parts, but living creatures seem to be the only things that make the differentiation.

I just mean if you're going to get trancendental, I agree that logic would work without us, but I don't think it would exist without us (or something that thought like we do).

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

But at the same time, in and of itself empiricism does not seem to be a holistic epistemology and I think there is a need for something else. But as I've mentioned, that "something else" has its own set of problems, one of which you rightfully noted, "that any irrational belief has space to be defined as rational." Gettier pointed this out in his famous paper.

Gettier rightly points out the specific hairs we're splitting, but I never took that as a critique of any epistemology, just the idea of "justified true belief" itself. He demonstrates that there are compelling exceptions, certainly, but in doing so, it seems that he reinforces Popper's view of epistemology as well. We only chip away those things that are false, and thus can never expect to reach full confirmation.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

One of the criticisms of Popper was that his philosophy of science did not produce new hypothesis but rather discredited old ones.

But that's a childish way to look at it. For instance, Einstein didn't wipe Newton clean off the map with his mathematical work, he merely enhanced it. Engineers still use Newton's equations when considering mechanics. Einstein was just more specific: he showed that in certain situations, there was more to be said about the dynamics of systems. Newton's math was technically falsified in those situations, but didn't suffer being totally discredited.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

For this reason, much of science today still follows traditional empirical induction rather than Popperian deduction.

That may be the approach taken by scientists, but Popper's description of what is actually happening philosophically is still true. It would take falsification to philosophically defeat a notion. Confirming accomplishes very little philosophically, so the practical work of scientists, as they approach it, isn't the philosophical issue.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Popper was distrustful of induction as it is not considered to be as strong as deduction. This is not to say that Popper did not have a point, and I think that most including myself would agree that a theory should have a mechanism to falsify it, but they continue to use traditional empirical induction to make new hypotheses in spite of Popper's proposals.

You may have a misconception as to how hypotheses work, here. Popper doesn't actually encourage the destruction of hypotheses, or even induction. His argument is closer to where the rubber meets the road. So sure, a scientist will use induction to form further hypotheses, but only through falsifying a hypothesis could he really contribute to knowledge. Popper just identified that we can't be certain that we're right, but we can definitely be certain when we're wrong.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I've asked atheists and theists alike that claim their beliefs are empirically justified to explain how they "test" the existence of a god. Furthermore, I've asked them if the test confirmed or denied the existence of a god, then would they be willing to change their beliefs. In response to these prompts, the most common response, so it seems, is they ask me to define the test.

To be honest, the whole exchange is a mess. You're asking someone why they don't believe people when they say that a god exists. (After all, gods never show up to shake hands and introduce themselves -- we need people's reports of them.) Empirically, a lack of evidence is enough at that point, but it depends what kind of gods we're talking, because there are lots.

Sometimes people will substitute "god" for "love" or "joy" in an attempt to show that such things exist, therefore an equivalent god also exists. I'm sure you can see that an god without substance is a weak argument ontologically. Other times, the god is anthropomorphic, and the more likely scenario is that we've projected ourselves into a god like we do in many other situations, as it's a normal human thing to anthropomorphize. Still other times, gods are presented as unknowable, and at that point, one might wonder what one is being asked to believe, or even why bother.

So empirically, there is actually a fair amount of evidence to discredit the idea of a god existing. People's tendency to personify, equivocate, or follow traditions without questioning them all count as fair evidence for the hypothesis that gods are human creations. That hypothesis could be readily falsified by the appearance of what anyone described as a god.

So as you can see, that doesn't destroy the ontology of a possibly-maybe-could-be god entity of your choosing, but it is evidence.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I then point out that although they may think they are holding beliefs empirically, they are not unless they can produce some objective method to test their beliefs. I use this exercise to expose the fact that many people change the test rather than change their beliefs, and are not really as empirical as they claim to be.

And many people aren't, so you'd probably do well to point that out. However, not having a test for gods is hardly surprising, when it's up to a theist to decide what a god really is. In this way, a theist can use a true Scotsman fallacy for any epistemological argument provided.

"Yes, but that's not my god -- my god doesn't have a beard and sit on a throne."

If, however, you determined that a particular ham sandwich was a god, then gods exist as much as the ham sandwich. But then the term "god" has slipped rather quickly into nonsense again.

Empirically speaking, the burden still rests on the claimant. "I don't believe you" is a reasonable position to take, given so much contrary evidence.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence

Posted on: August 11, 2009 - 11:10am #53

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

ubuntuAnyone wrote:Vastet

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I can't even play Star Craft on it, so it's just collecting dust.

Dude....I could play starcraft on my ancient Pentium 120....

Not on windows 98 you can't. And the pc itself dates to 96. It can't handle a more recent windows, even if I wanted it to. I'll pick up an old xp system in a year or two so that I'll be able to play again.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 12, 2009 - 12:07am #54

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Dude....I could play

Dude....I could play starcraft on my ancient Pentium 120....

I don't remember what OS I had installed on that guy...Probably Windows 95 or sometihng. But anyways, when do upgrade to XP, look me up. I love that old game.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 12, 2009 - 6:54am #55

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

HisWillness wrote:I agree

HisWillness wrote:

I agree that logic would work without us, but I don't think it would exist without us (or something that thought like we do).

For a naturalist, this is certainly the case. For everyone else, I suppose it all depends on the ontological status of entities other than people. Panentheists and Pantheists would have no problem grounding logic as part of whatever they consider to have being such as the Force or Mother Earth. Classical theistic philosophers would probably contend logic as part of a god's divine perfections. Platonist would say it was a form. In any case, such a discussion is not about epistemology, but ontology.

HisWillness wrote:

A stretch to say that there was discernment of things before we started discerning them

If I may use an analogy from computing, a computer has to have some sort of basic software to run the hardware, such as a BIOS on a PC. Not that we are computers, but I think we are like computers in that to gain much, we need a little. I would certainly not say everything we will ever know a priori, but it does reason to believe that there is at least something. For instance, I have to at a bear minimal level that my faculties and senses are working properly before I can do any meaningful empirical observation.

HisWillness wrote:

Gettier rightly points out the specific hairs we're splitting, but I never took that as a critique of any epistemology, just the idea of "justified true belief" itself.

Justified true belief is perhaps the hallmark of any epistemological systems, save ones that reject justified true beliefs. Gettier pointed out that people can have true beliefs based on erroneous justification. The belief would be irrational under some epistemological systems although it may be true, and therein lies the problem.

HisWillness wrote:

But that's a childish way to look at it. For instance, Einstein didn't wipe Newton clean off the map with his mathematical work, he merely enhanced it. Engineers still use Newton's equations when considering mechanics. Einstein was just more specific: he showed that in certain situations, there was more to be said about the dynamics of systems.

That may be the approach taken by scientists, but Popper's description of what is actually happening philosophically is still true.

If one rejected Popper for it, I think that would be childish. But Popper concerns were with empirical induction and proposed it as an alternative deductive approach using modus tollens. I was suggesting that scientist do both inductively affirm hypotheses and deductively falsify hypotheses. To say that scientist are doing empirical deduction but philosophically doing falsification is equivocation. Also, I would not say hypothesis testing is "either-or" choice between empirical induction and deductive falsification, but rather a "both-and" relationship. The process of constructing a hypothesis starts with empirical induction. When a particular hypothesis has been rigorously tested, it becomes generally accepted. Newtonian Mechanics worked well to describe the universe at a macroscopic level, but did not do well in explaining the universe on a cosmic level or quantum level. Newton's observations were tested and affirmed until the precession of Mercury posed a problem. Einstein then proposed general relativity has a hypothesis. Arguably, without empirical induction to affirm Newton's hypotheses, no one would have discovered the incompleteness of his hypotheses.

HisWillness wrote:

To be honest, the whole exchange is a mess. You're asking someone why they don't believe people when they say that a god exists.

I'm not necessarily asking for a universal test, but at least personal test. If my test supports my beliefs then I am, at least a minimal level, attempting to be empirical about my beliefs. This says nothing about the soundness of the test or the validity of its assumptions. The point of such an exercise is to expose incredulity, not to actually test the existence or nonexistence of a being. If some one asked me why I believe in Santa Claus and I could say: "This is how I know Santa Claus exists: I was told he leave presents for me under my tree on Christmas Eve. I go to bed every Christmas Eve with nothing under tree, and wake up every Christmas morning with gifts." If I get gifts, then my belief in Santa Claus' existence is justified based on the test and vice versa. The validity of the test is questionable, but it is nevertheless an empirical inductive test that could be used to affirm or deny my belief in the existence of Santa Claus. All I was asking for is something simple like this, as I could care less about the what they believe. In short, are people question begging by shoring up their beliefs with evidence, or are they performing tests and formulating beliefs on these tests? If I was question begging I would say, "Santa Claus exists, here is evidence that says Santa Claus exists, therefore, Santa Claus exists."

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 12, 2009 - 6:56pm #56

HisWillness

Posts: 4100

Joined: 2008-02-21

Offline

ubuntuAnyone wrote:For

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

For instance, I have to at a bear minimal level that my faculties and senses are working properly before I can do any meaningful empirical observation.

It's hard to figure out what level of philosophical rigour you're following at times. Sometimes, I get the feeling like you're familiar with the literature, and then here, you skip over it in a strange way. I'm not saying you're ignorant of the material, but it's odd when you jump from a clear understanding of modern philosophy to not being familiar with 18th century philosophy.

What I mean is this: empirical observation by one lone person rarely passes muster as very significant. The reason for that is evident in simple counter-examples. Some people are delusional, etc, and so their senses are not necessarily being processed properly. That doesn't say much about the process of empiricism. It takes more than one person to make a scientific process.

That said, phenomenology as a school of thought is decidedly more convincing than noumenology as a significant force in philosophy, but the mentally ill and brain damaged are often left out of the battery of counter-examples against the pristine version of most philosophical models. It's odd that such things should be able to have such an impact on things that seem so certain.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Justified true belief is perhaps the hallmark of any epistemological systems, save ones that reject justified true beliefs. Gettier pointed out that people can have true beliefs based on erroneous justification. The belief would be irrational under some epistemological systems although it may be true, and therein lies the problem.

Okay, now we're really stretching "irrational", if you mean "unjustified". At the hair-splitting level that Gettier is exploring, it's pretty clear that there's space for unjustified true belief. Absolutely.

For your purposes, you would have to determine if whatever case you'd like to make is actually an example of one of those exceptions.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I was suggesting that scientist do both inductively affirm hypotheses and deductively falsify hypotheses.

As was I, for the practical reason that it's not easy to operate in the way that Popper describes intentionally. However, I was speaking philosophically. If you want to go after what is actually happening philosophically, then it's easy to demonstrate how the mechanism Popper describes is the empirical path to an ever-receding truth. I agree that scientists do not act as though they are falsifying.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

To say that scientist are doing empirical deduction but philosophically doing falsification is equivocation.

No, not really. I think you meant "induction", but at any rate, even if a scientist follows induction to form a hypothesis, that's fine. The deductive (and eliminative) part only happens during the testing. So maybe you think I'm saying that a scientist goes through the falsification process in forming a hypothesis, but I was only talking about testing.

That's not to say that falsification is even all-encompassing in terms of the hypothesis. The reason it's falsification no matter what is for the simple reason that one can say with great certainty that something does not behave in certain ways. For example, the hypothesis that gravity works in a different direction than we know it does (like sideways) is very consistently falsified. We'd be hard pressed to find a single second of a day when that theory isn't falsified. However, to say that the direction is confirmed is less certain, by the nature of confirmation.

I'm still not sure what alternative you'r suggesting for an epistemology. That's not an argument in and of itself -- I'm not attacking you with an argument from silence. But to say that

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I'm not necessarily asking for a universal test, but at least personal test. If my test supports my beliefs then I am, at least a minimal level, attempting to be empirical about my beliefs. This says nothing about the soundness of the test or the validity of its assumptions.

Yeah, but it's a little weak. I can ask myself if I believe something, but it's not really a test of my belief. But do I really believe? That doesn't strike me as a particularly good test.

You're not actually suggesting any test, it seems. A "personal" test isn't very specific.

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

The validity of the test is questionable, but it is nevertheless an empirical inductive test that could be used to affirm or deny my belief in the existence of Santa Claus.

But that's the point: the validity of the test is questionable. While I agree that there are plenty of bad tests for things, we should probably concern ourselves with good tests for things if we're interested in discovering any kind of truth.

The thing is, empiricism is just an attempt at truth. It's not like the holy grail -- it doesn't eliminate the possibility of bad testing, because it's still people doing the testing. We make mistakes, both in the testing and in the forming of hypotheses. That's why I describe the process the same way Popper would: a paring away of falsity towards truth.

What kind of philosophical purity are you aiming for, here?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence

Posted on: August 13, 2009 - 8:55am #57

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

HisWillness wrote:What I

HisWillness wrote:

What I mean is this: empirical observation by one lone person rarely passes muster as very significant. The reason for that is evident in simple counter-examples. Some people are delusional, etc, and so their senses are not necessarily being processed properly. That doesn't say much about the process of empiricism. It takes more than one person to make a scientific process.

I'd agree that the scientific enterprise is very much a communal effort, but it stands or falls on the individual contributors being empirical, and I as an individual am confined to a body that relies on senses and faculties that I presume are functioning correctly.

HisWillness wrote:

That said, phenomenology as a school of thought is decidedly more convincing than noumenology as a significant force in philosophy, but the mentally ill and brain damaged are often left out of the battery of counter-examples against the pristine version of most philosophical models. It's odd that such things should be able to have such an impact on things that seem so certain.

I personally am not looking for a pristine system per se, but trying to show that empiricism (not necessarily empirical observations) is not the clean pristine as it is often portrayed to be. Phenomenology as a philosophical method seems to be a productive enterprise, but still begin with the individual and is still plagued with many of the same problems that plague empiricism, just at a different level. I am not saying that noumenology is any better, but as on face it seems to account better for a priori entities and all they entail, and thus the reason I would probably have leanings towards it, as I do transcendentalism.

HisWillness wrote:

The deductive (and eliminative) part only happens during the testing. So maybe you think I'm saying that a scientist goes through the falsification process in forming a hypothesis, but I was only talking about testing.

Thanks for clarifying. You'd be right--the eliminative part only happens during testing. Also, testing produces new inquiries, such attempting to account for anomalies, such as the precession of Mercury.

HisWillness wrote:

We'd be hard pressed to find a single second of a day when that theory isn't falsified. However, to say that the direction is confirmed is less certain, by the nature of confirmation.

And this is the principle difference between empirical induction and deductive falsification, and as I understand it, this was why Popper preferred his approach.

HisWillness wrote:

But that's the point: the validity of the test is questionable. While I agree that there are plenty of bad tests for things, we should probably concern ourselves with good tests for things if we're interested in discovering any kind of truth.

The thing is, empiricism is just an attempt at truth. It's not like the holy grail -- it doesn't eliminate the possibility of bad testing, because it's still people doing the testing. We make mistakes, both in the testing and in the forming of hypotheses. That's why I describe the process the same way Popper would: a paring away of falsity towards truth.

What kind of philosophical purity are you aiming for, here?

What I am looking for is credulity. If anything, I'm trying to defend empirical observation rather than exploit it. Before we can even begin to evaluate the soundness and validity of a test, the test has to actually exist. The challenge was to simply produce an empirical test that was used to accept or reject a particular belief. How can one evaluate the soundness of validity of the test if it does not even exist? That's chopping the tree down before it even sprouts. The question begging example I gave sounds empirical, but really is not because it lacks a quintessential element of empirical observation, which is a test. Granted, we should attempt to produce tests that are sound and valid, but one claiming to be empirical without test is like claiming to be a book without pages.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 5:16pm #58

Di66en6ion

Posts: 106

Joined: 2009-01-03

Offline

Vastet wrote:I do, it's just

Vastet wrote:

I do, it's just ancient (win 98). The PS3 browses at least 10 times faster and more effectively, so there's not a lot of point in using the PC. It's not even connected to the net atm. I can't even play Star Craft on it, so it's just collecting dust.

I used to be pretty hardcore into console gaming but I'm pretty sure a PC/mouse is a much more effective combo once it's mastered. Granted, a pc vs a console are nothing alike for several reasons:

1) Field of view has usually been smaller on a console (or at least the speed and ease at which you can turn). This is the only problem I really have going from a PC to a console.

2) Most console shooters are auto aim.

I'm not a 100% sure a mouse is better than a controller, it may just be the learning curve, but I've seen videos of some very skilled pc gamers track much more effeciently with a mouse in videos than with a controller. Controllers are extremely effecient at straif-shooting while mouses, when mastered, are deadly at accuracy and response under any condition. My overall opinion is that mouses just take longer to become godly with.

As for price range of a PC that's not really an excuse anymore:

I built a PC (Core components: 9800 GTX+, 4GB DDR2, Duo core E8500, tower etc...) That plays Crysis at ultra high settings for less than $600 (not including monitor) during the massive sales on Newegg after thanksgiving last fall.

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 8:51pm #59

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

A mouse can't compare with

A mouse can't compare with the speed of a controller. I did acknowledge that point & click is more accurate, but I can spin on a dime while still targetting and firing upon my opponent. A mouse is physically incapable of performing the same feat. A controller is also better at precision fire, even though lacking in actual accuracy. Otherwise guns wouldn't use triggers, but a top down clicker to fire rounds. The final blow to the mouse in my view is that it adds another barrier to being absorbed into the game. It feels less realistic.
Also, will your PC be playing brand new off the shelf games in 10 years? No. Not even in 5. Console = cheaper. You cannot win an argument for cost effectiveness with Sony's tactics. Microsoft and their 4 year Xbox, yeah, you've got a point. Ninendo and their 5-6 year consoles also, but only due to Ninendo not releasing a powerful console in 14 odd years. But with Sony's power and ten year life span, no PC is as cheap by a fraction. In three to four years you'll need an upgrade.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 8:55pm #60

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

I won't need an upgrade for

I won't need an upgrade for a good 8 to 10 years. Hardware OR software, while you'll need both. And I also got a blu-ray player, a 80 gb hdd, a web browser, PS Home, a music player/video player that works with 90% of video on the net, a network comparable and superior to XBoxLive, and more, all for less than $600. To top it off, I can even play games from 15 years ago, and regional coding is going the way of the dodo. Your PC is not nearly so valuable for the dollar to a gamer like myself.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 9:46pm #61

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote:I won't need an

Vastet wrote:

I won't need an upgrade for a good 8 to 10 years. Hardware OR software, while you'll need both. And I also got a blu-ray player, a 80 gb hdd, a web browser, PS Home, a music player/video player that works with 90% of video on the net, a network comparable and superior to XBoxLive, and more, all for less than $600. To top it off, I can even play games from 15 years ago, and regional coding is going the way of the dodo. Your PC is not nearly so valuable for the dollar to a gamer like myself.

Debating the pros and cons of PC's and Consoles most be more stimulating that bashing Kent Hovind, too.

I game on my PC, and I spent about $300 on parts...it runs well, and I can type papers, print, edit photos, edit movies, install other OS', run other OS's inside my OS, dual boot, program, chat with my friends half way around the world with a web cam surf the net in half a dozen different browsers, snych my music to my mp3 player, listen to music, watch movies in High Def (in fact, I don't even own a TV because I use my computer as a theater), all the while playing games, old school games and new games alike. Not that consoles are bad, but I think A PC has lots of utility other than strictly for gaming. And whirling with a mouse....not prob. I have a logitech gaming that that has adjustable precision. But the ability to aim with it...Well, I'm just a terrible shot anyways and even more with a controller, so I use a "noob tube" or I "spray and pray".

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 10:16pm #62

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

"Debating the pros and cons

"Debating the pros and cons of PC's and Consoles most be more stimulating that bashing Kent Hovind, too."

Nothing stimulates me like discussion of games and related tech. My first debates were all game based. To this day I have more posts on gaming than any other subject. Religion would be a distant second, followed closely by politics and then economics.

But... I should say that there isn't a single thing you mentioned that I can't do on my PS3. All I have to do is partition the drive and install Linux. Some things, such as your mentioning of MP3, I don't even have to do that for. I'm pretty sure the XBox 360 can do a lot of it too, just not nearly as well.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 10:41pm #63

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

Just for shits and giggles,

Just for shits and giggles, things I can do without Linux in bold, things I can do with it in underline, off your list.

and I can type papers, print, *edit photos, *edit movies, install other OS', run other OS's inside my OS, dual boot, program, chat with my friends half way around the world with a web cam surf the net in half a dozen different browsers, snych my music to my mp3 player, listen to music, watch movies in High Def (in fact, I don't even own a TV because I use my computer as a theater), {High def tv > monitor. PC lost that battle with HDMI.} all the while playing games, old school games and new games alike.

*= I do have the ability to modify movies, pics, and audio recordings without Linux, but it must have been recorded on the PS3 to do so, and there currently isn't software to compare with say Adobe that you can use without Linux.

No advantage for PC, to be quite honest, as long as you're familiar with Linux. I'm not, and partioning

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 14, 2009 - 10:44pm #64

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

my drive now would be quite

my drive now would be quite aggravating unless I had another HDD to backup all my save files and other data I've collected, as well as having to reinstall games and redownload patches and firmware updates, which would take quite awhile indeed. So I haven't done so. I wouldn't gain enough for the cash, time, and effort at this point. Maybe by the time I can afford to be thrifty and buy a 500 gb HDD, but not for now.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 15, 2009 - 12:09am #65

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote:Just for shits

Vastet wrote:

Just for shits and giggles, things I can do without Linux in bold, things I can do with it in underline, off your list. and I can type papers, print, *edit photos, *edit movies, install other OS', run other OS's inside my OS, dual boot, program, chat with my friends half way around the world with a web cam surf the net in half a dozen different browsers, snych my music to my mp3 player, listen to music, watch movies in High Def (in fact, I don't even own a TV because I use my computer as a theater), {High def tv > monitor. PC lost that battle with HDMI.} all the while playing games, old school games and new games alike. *= I do have the ability to modify movies, pics, and audio recordings without Linux, but it must have been recorded on the PS3 to do so, and there currently isn't software to compare with say Adobe that you can use without Linux. No advantage for PC, to be quite honest, as long as you're familiar with Linux. I'm not, and partioning

Teh! Now I'm really feeling like a dork.

I suppose one *could* do all these things on a graphing calculator, but would require a substantial amount of modding to the calculator. Sounds to me that by the time you actually get a PS3 or xbox to do this, you may as well have bought a PC....

PC's "lost" with HDMI? I suppose that's a function of your video card and TV/Monitor. I suppose if you don't want it, you can use the ol' analog D-Sub connectors, as most monitors, tv's and video cards still support them with really high resolutions.

With gaming buddy of mine, we built a PC and hooked it up to his 52 inch TV. He prefers an xbox controller, so we added that to his PC, and he plays COD 4 and 5 like a mad man...If I ever went to his place, I'd use my laptop. It runs COD 4 surprisingly well. He played on his desktop with his big ol' TV and xbox controller and I used my laptop, keyboard, and gaming mouse....Same game, two entirely different rigs. Oh the versatility of the ol' PC Smiling I suppose that's why I like em'.

But....if one wants to play consoles, I suppose that's his or her prerogative. I'm not going to stop them or tell them they should buy a PC.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 15, 2009 - 12:36am #66

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

That's just it though. If

That's just it though. If you partitioned the drive when you first get the system then all you have to do is install the OS, and it IS a PC, that doubles as a console. I didn't only because I'm not familiar with Linux, and didn't have it to install it in the first place.
Regarding the TV, that's my whole point. In the past, monitors were vastly better graphically than any TV. Today a great many PC games are played on TV's instead. The TV already has better quality than the human eye can detect. No 2D display advancement in picture will ever be necessary. So PC's no longer have the advantage they've held since SVGA.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 15, 2009 - 5:31am #67

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote:That's just it

Vastet wrote:

That's just it though. If you partitioned the drive when you first get the system then all you have to do is install the OS, and it IS a PC, that doubles as a console. I didn't only because I'm not familiar with Linux, and didn't have it to install it in the first place. Regarding the TV, that's my whole point. In the past, monitors were vastly better graphically than any TV. Today a great many PC games are played on TV's instead.

The line between PC's and consoles used to be pretty clear, but with the advent of PS2's and the first Linux-based pc's and the fact that the original xbox was a PC in console clothing using USB for the controller interface running an embeeded version of windows 2000, the line has become somewhat skewed. But still...I don't have to mod my pc to do many of the faorementioned tasks. Open the box, turn it on, and a way you go. Smiling

Vastet wrote:

The TV already has better quality than the human eye can detect. No 2D display advancement in picture will ever be necessary. So PC's no longer have the advantage they've held since SVGA.

HD was the reason I never actually bought a TV....DVD's were capable of 720 lines of resolution when the best TV's at the time used s-video...something like 480, but even then....

But then again, the difference between a monitor and a TV these days largely the way they are applied. I suppose whenever my friend plugged his CPU into his TV, it became a monitor, and when I watch DVD's on my computer it became a TV. But I do not suppose a monitor has remote control capabilities and comes with a built in cable tuner. Maybe that's the difference.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 15, 2009 - 5:37am #68

Di66en6ion

Posts: 106

Joined: 2009-01-03

Offline

Vastet wrote:A mouse can't

Vastet wrote:

A mouse can't compare with the speed of a controller. I did acknowledge that point & click is more accurate, but I can spin on a dime while still targetting and firing upon my opponent. A mouse is physically incapable of performing the same feat. A controller is also better at precision fire, even though lacking in actual accuracy. Otherwise guns wouldn't use triggers, but a top down clicker to fire rounds. The final blow to the mouse in my view is that it adds another barrier to being absorbed into the game. It feels less realistic. Also, will your PC be playing brand new off the shelf games in 10 years? No. Not even in 5. Console = cheaper. You cannot win an argument for cost effectiveness with Sony's tactics. Microsoft and their 4 year Xbox, yeah, you've got a point. Ninendo and their 5-6 year consoles also, but only due to Ninendo not releasing a powerful console in 14 odd years. But with Sony's power and ten year life span, no PC is as cheap by a fraction. In three to four years you'll need an upgrade.

A mouse can't compare when comparing equal time spent on both a mouse and a controller but a mouse is more deadly in the long run once it's mastered, I have no doubt about this even though I hardly play pc games anymore and still prefer a controller. Play Counterstrike online on a pc for a few weeks... especially RPG surf matches, and tell me that a mouse doesn't have superior accuracy when you have a guy come in that can literally jump halfway across a map, spin around you 6-7 times and headshot you with a shotty in less than 2 seconds (not joking either, some of these guys have been playing that game since release. I don't think I've seen a console game to date that would let me set the sensitivity that high). Of course this is an isolated situation, I'd probably rather have a controller for instagib matches in UT.

Why should I be worried about the lifespan of my computer when it'll obviously play any games a PS3 or 360 will ever be able to play? It'll be outdated in comparison to newer computers but so will PS3/360 graphic capabilities. My last PC I built in the beginning of 04 lasted till end of 08 so about 4 1/2 years is a pretty good lifespan considering the thousands and thousands of hours I put onto it (I ravaged it with CS, HL, WoW, Oblivion, UT, and Far Cry which it played all of them at or near max settings; 9800 AIW radeon card ftw!). I have no qualms over consoles though, I loved my original Xbox which was an original release that lasted me 3 years (gogo 3 year insurance plan) till it died and I got it replaced for free.

My solution is get one pc and one console. Careful research and selecting the right time to buy PC components puts the cost down comparable to consoles so you'll end up getting all the PC exclusives plus half or more (ports ftw) of the console market exclusives.

Posted on: August 15, 2009 - 6:15pm #69

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

"But still...I don't have to

"But still...I don't have to mod my pc to do many of the faorementioned tasks. Open the box, turn it on, and a way you go."

But what modding? Installing an OS isn't a mod. Partitioning a drive isn't a mod. And if you get your PC ready to go out of the box, you can almost double the price tag.

Di66en6ion,
A keyboard is superior to a mouse or controller for FPS in my experience. Once mastered (which takes more time and effort than mastering a mouse or controller due to the high dexterity requirements in both hands), you'll be spinning circles around the guy spinning circles. You get the speed of a controller, minus precision fire, without sacrificing accuracy. I only find mice truly necessary for point & click games like RTS, where continuous brief seconds of inability to shoot or dodge won't get you killed, and no other accessory comes close to being as useful.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 15, 2009 - 6:15pm #70

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

But the PC you have can't

But the PC you have can't play any PS3 game. 360, yeah, because MS has so deeply tied Windows and XBox, but not PS3. While the PS3 can play any PC games that can run on Linux.

I wasn't talking about the BEST setup you can have, but the cheapest to remain in the current gen. For the best setup, a PS3 and up-to-date PC (Nintendo is irrelevant, MS's games are all on PC too) can play every game on the market for 5 to 10 years before you even need to think about upgrading more than your OS. It's just going to cost you. A lot.

It should be noted also that ports of console games to PC are notoriously buggy. Not all, or always, but often enough to stick to the console version.

Yet, at the same time, there was once a time when console games were critical bug free, while a large percentage of PC games required multiple patches to get it to start, let alone play through. Consoles no longer enjoy that advantage as securely as they once did.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 18, 2009 - 3:44pm #71

HisWillness

Posts: 4100

Joined: 2008-02-21

Offline

I've continued the original

I've continued the original conversation here.

Posted on: August 21, 2009 - 9:35am #72

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote:While the PS3

Vastet wrote:

While the PS3 can play any PC games that can run on Linux.

Only if the games will compile for the Cell processor in the PS3...just because Linux may run on a PS3 does not necessarily all the games will. I can run Linux, OS X, and Windows all on my PC.

Vastet wrote:

I wasn't talking about the BEST setup you can have, but the cheapest to remain in the current gen.

For $350, I could built a pretty decent machine...I could even recycle some of my older hardware if I wanted to cut the cost more such as (PSU, Optical Drives, HDD, Case, etc.)

Vastet wrote:

Yet, at the same time, there was once a time when console games were critical bug free, while a large percentage of PC games required multiple patches to get it to start, let alone play through. Consoles no longer enjoy that advantage as securely as they once did.

Patches for PC games usually have to do with specific hardware incompatibilities, so it seems. The blessing (and curse) of PC's is that plethora of hardware options available. If I could write software for proprietary hardware and operating system, I suppose I could make it relatively bug free.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 21, 2009 - 9:53am #73

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

I'm not a tech whiz, but

I'm not a tech whiz, but from what I understand the Cell is quite capable of handling anything any PC can handle, for a little while longer at least.

And yeah, you can make a relatively cheap computer($350), but it won't be this generation. It won't play all of todays games, let alone games in two years. And it doesn't have a blu-ray drive either. PS3 is far superior for the cost. There's a reason console manufacturers take 2-5 years of losses on hardware. No PC maker/supplier ever takes a loss on a sale. Microsoft has millions in losses on their consoles, they've never made a penny. Sony is smarter, but they have to take losses too, for 2-3 years per console if their history is anything to go by.

And as of September 1st, the PS3 will be $299, $50 cheaper than your budget PC, and far more capable. I'll call that the final nail in the coffin. Smiling

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 21, 2009 - 11:22am #74

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote:I'm not a tech

Vastet wrote:

I'm not a tech whiz, but from what I understand the Cell is quite capable of handling anything any PC can handle, for a little while longer at least.

Teh...Capable does not mean compatible. I doubt one could install Windows or OS-X on a PS3. Linux...well because it's open source, it can install on anything from a wrist watch to a supercomputer.

Vastet wrote:

And yeah, you can make a relatively cheap computer($350), but it won't be this generation. It won't play all of todays games, let alone games in two years. And it doesn't have a blu-ray drive either. PS3 is far superior for the cost. There's a reason console manufacturers take 2-5 years of losses on hardware.

They take a loss of the platform so they can collect royalties on the games...What you don't pay for in hardware, you pay for in software.

Vastet wrote:

I And as of September 1st, the PS3 will be $299, $50 cheaper than your budget PC

Capable...that's debatable...like I said, I can run OS-X, Linux, and Windows on my PC, plus all the apps (games, etc.) associted with them. And Sony is going to stop manufacturing them in September, thus the reason for the price drop. I suppose the ol' PS3 will be old tech by then.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Posted on: August 21, 2009 - 7:06pm #75

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

The problem with running

The problem with running other OS on the PS3 has nothing to do with the Cell itself. Since 1993, Microsoft has been acknowledged as Sony's biggest rival, by Sony. They foresaw MS's entry into the market, and knew that if they didn't have a significant head start that they'd be unable to compete with the money MS could throw around. The incompatibility of Windows is a strategy to get more people using Linux. It was a feature on the PS2 as well, though a much less useful one since you needed to purchase a HDD and installing Linux crippled the PS2 OS so it was no longer useful for PS2 games.

Yes, new games tend to cost $10-$20 more on console, but that is quickly negated by all three consoles by greatest hits type titles, when the price drops by more than half. And if you buy used (which many do), then you can drop the price even more. So there isn't really an advantage there.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 21, 2009 - 7:07pm #76

Vastet

Posts: 13234

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

Finally, the redesign is

Finally, the redesign is just a result of tech microisation, if that's a word. The slim PS3 isn't lacking features, nor does it gain features. It costs less to make is all.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Posted on: August 22, 2009 - 12:55am #77

ubuntuAnyone

Posts: 862

Joined: 2009-08-06

Offline

Vastet wrote:The problem

Vastet wrote:

The problem with running other OS on the PS3 has nothing to do with the Cell itself.

I suppose the same is true for a PC platform running PS3 games. There's nothing wrong with PC architecture per se. If I was a gaming company, I'd probably write my games in such a way that they compile and run as as many platforms as possible, albeit this is easier said than done. I write programs (as that's what I do for a living....) and I write in such a way to make things as cross platform as possible, but there always seems to be some sort of nuisance about a particular platform that makes compiling and running code on that platform difficult. The one thing I like about the Linux OS is that it is vary adaptable to various hardware platforms, although the software that runs on Linux is not always compatible, and won't always compile. The x86 platform, now that Apple as adopted it, is virtually ubiquitous to desktops and almost that way in servers now, so it is my platform of choice. I suppose I could in theory write all my code to run on PS3 and set up a data center using PS3's as the servers, but I that would be like using a Kawasaki Ninja to do the job of a tractor trailer.

Vastet wrote:

Since 1993, Microsoft has been acknowledged as Sony's biggest rival, by Sony. They foresaw MS's entry into the market, and knew that if they didn't have a significant head start that they'd be unable to compete with the money MS could throw around. The incompatibility of Windows is a strategy to get more people using Linux. It was a feature on the PS2 as well, though a much less useful one since you needed to purchase a HDD and installing Linux crippled the PS2 OS so it was no longer useful for PS2 games. Yes, new games tend to cost $10-$20 more on console, but that is quickly negated by all three consoles by greatest hits type titles, when the price drops by more than half. And if you buy used (which many do), then you can drop the price even more. So there isn't really an advantage there.

The new PS3 won't have the ability to install Linux on it. That make me sad...well, at least until some hack figures out how to circumvent Sony's lock out.

I buy used PC games many times b/c they are cheaper. I got COD4 for 12 USD about a month after it came out.

I suppose I'm not forced to run Windows when I get a PC. But if I want to, I have the option, and I can even run it parallel with other OS's. Heck, I can even do the same with OS X, DOS, Old School Windows, etc. I sometmies like to play vintage games. Master's of Magic, Sim City 2000, Tank Wars, and Prince of Person are some of my favorites.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”