Greed, Zealotry, and the Commodore 64 645
jira writes "On the occasion of the Commodore 64's rebirth as an Atom-equipped nettop, the Guardian's Jon Blyth remembers what the original Commodore 64 taught him. Among other things: 'But look at it, all brown, ugly and lovely. It taught me so much. The Commodore 64 taught me about zealotry. After upgrading from the inferior ZX Spectrum, I would try to convince the Sinclair loyalists to follow me. I would invite them to my house, and let them see that with just eight colors and a monophonic sound chip, their lives lacked true depth. My evangelism quickly faded into impatience. So, I can now see why American Baptists get so miffy about atheists — it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are.'"
Goes both ways... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I can now see why American Baptists get so miffy about atheists -- it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are.
That's funny... that's the same reason I, an atheist, get so miffy about Christians, especially Baptists, especially young-earth Creationists.
Hopefully this is a whoosh and there's some sarcasm I'm missing or something...
Speaking of greed... (Score:5, Insightful)
In these days of emulators and cheap FPGAs, it just seems tasteless to throw a plastic skin around the winning architecture and call it a C64(even more tasteless to claim to do that, then not follow through, of course...) If you want to bring the past into the present, take advantage of the fact that modern tech should be able to reproduce old gear for considerably less, even in small quantities. If you want to hearken back to the days of the architecture wars, when numerous competing systems existed, featuring a variety of exotic design choices, perhaps one of the hobby projects in creating something exotic, for its own sake, is a more appropriate homage...
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:0, Insightful)
Primary Programming. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a medicinal chemist working on a program to cure Alzheimer's disease, and I thank God for my abilities.
Tell me, what part of your abilities came from God? Did he go through the years of school for you? Perhaps he inspired you with the knowledge of how chemical reactions work?
Thanking God for your abilities is just pushing it back a step. Instead of me disrespecting a doctor by giving God the credit instead, that's you disrespecting every human teacher you ever had. If you're thanking God for the aptitude alone, thank your parents -- nature or nurture, the part you're crediting God with likely came from them.
If you're thanking God for every single event that deterministically led to you being where you are now, basically for setting the universe in motion, even if that were true, that seems absurdly far removed from what you're actually doing with medicine -- how do you know you're even doing what the creator of the universe would want?
I think you presume too much of the Doctor when you deny the existence of miracles.
What is it I'm supposed to be presuming that isn't possible?
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a medicinal chemist working on a program to cure Alzheimer's disease, and I thank God for my abilities. I think you presume too much of the Doctor when you deny the existence of miracles.
The human body will fight for its survival just as much as its owner, sometimes beating what looks like impossible odds. Just like some people have extreme allergies, others have extreme resistances. I'll agree that despite modern medicine sometimes the doctor is not the one to thank, but it's a fairly good stretch from there to interference from a supernatural being.
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Saw it in the summary. Didn't really think the article was worth reading with something that prejudicial and blatantly wrong on the front page.
So again, unless there's a whoosh coming...
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually don't claim superiority. I'm only playing devil's advocate here -- I consider my opinion to be superior, because it's actually based on evidence and reason, but that doesn't say all that much about my character, and I don't necessarily know that there is not a theistic position based on evidence and reason, I just haven't found one yet.
But the clue is in the subject: "Goes both ways."
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:4, Insightful)
you define yourself with the things you don't believe in.
No one word is sufficient to define me. I'm also a software developer, son, brother, gamer, geek, martial artist, and forever a student -- and these are not sufficient to define me, either.
How do you define yourself?
But when most of the world actually spends a significant amount of time talking to the ceiling, following the same bronze-age mythology that many use to justify atrocities, I am appalled, and I deliberately do take pains to say, "No, I don't do that, I'm sane."
I also don't watch Twilight, and I don't use Facebook. But I'm also not aware of anyone who's used either Twilight or Facebook to justify rape, murder, institutionalized slavery, or ritualized genital mutilation. What's more, even of the hordes who watch Twilight, most are sane enough to know the difference between fantasy and reality, at least as far as Twilight is concerned.
you're an ignorant hypocrite.... you're also an idiot.
Citation needed.
Which of the things I have said is ignorant, hypocritical, or idiotic?
why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym which puts your sanity into question?
I don't see how it puts my sanity into question. The intention is that I am sane, even in the midst of a world which seems anarchic at times. That, and it's mostly historical; I stole it from a warez site back when that was cool.
And I happily back this position up in reality, in several local atheist/freethought groups. Other than the pseudonym, I haven't made any particular effort to hide.
If you were that determined to track me down, it'd take you only a few minutes of Googling.
That's not a Commodore 64 (Score:5, Insightful)
Good grief. Sure, it's outdated, but the Commie 64 was more than just another computer. It was a hobby. It was a pastime. It was a learning tool. It was an EXPERIENCE. If you had the ability and knowledge, you could add new features and functionality to the machine by cutting traces and soldering wires to the leads on chips, to your extension circuitry. I added all kinds of extras to mine, including a BASIC extension, MicroMon Assembler, a cartridge "bypass" switch, etc. Can't do those kinds of things with modern PC's.
My first word processor was "Speedscript". I typed it in from COMPUTE! Magazine over several days. That program did, in six kilobytes, what WORD was doing in hundreds, back in the early 90's! I used it more than any other software on that Ol' 64!
Now, want to talk about emulators? How about this one:
http://www.mymorninglight.org.nyud.net/C64/J64.htm [nyud.net]
Now THAT is a COOL C= 64 emulator, if I do say so myself! :)
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:4, Insightful)
DAMN! 5 A.M. here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lionesses can HAS prey!
Re:Primary Programming. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideology being the key.
Atheism is not an ideology any more than not believing in Tarot cards is one.
Stalin and Mao changed the figure of authority from an unquestionable man in the sky to one in a mansion. They made a religion of themselves and their politics.
The dogmatic faith of their ideologies was the danger, not the fact that they didn't believe in gods.
That is what make any religious or political ideology dangerous, dogma and the belief in it.
Re:Speaking of greed... (Score:4, Insightful)
> the days of the architecture wars
One man's architecture war is another man's platform diversity and healthy competition.
And every programer's porting nightmare.
Great book about Commodore's history (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end, it was (as is often the case) really bad management that killed Commodore.
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if he wants to thank God for his abilities? What is it to you? Are you offended by this? If God is as useless as you claim to be, then of what harm is his belief? Presumably, he is a competent scientist and would produce the same output regardless whether you agree to his beliefs or not. We who believe in God (I'm a muslim microbiologist) thank God for allowing us the opportunity to become what we are, to achieve what we have set out in life. In Islam, a core belief is the belief of predestination (qada' and qadar) meaning what has happened, is happening and will happen is already written. As humans we are given the gift of "free will", but this free will is limited by events out of our control. A child may inherit genes that confer him the abilities of a mathematical genius for example, but if he was born say in the Gaza Strip, then such potential will probably never be reached. As such, when good things happens to us, we thank God, when bad things happens, we ask for his protection and we say "insyallah" (God Willing) when we plan for the future.
Re:monophonic sound chip? (Score:3, Insightful)
I never could understand why Spectrum was so popular.
It was damn cheap, that's why!
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find fascinating is how God never sent boat's and helicopters until after we invented them. I can only assume he saves us with our own inventions because we're a much more moral people than we used to be.
Pug
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm... I don't think you ended the story quite properly.
There, fixed it for you.
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:4, Insightful)
i know this ain't going anywhere.. but, in good fun, here goes:
"The Dragon In My Garage [godlessgeeks.com]" - Carl Sagan.
Or this:
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
— Steve Eley
You are correct in that just because you can't observe something at your command doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But the burden of proof falls on the one claiming something exists to demonstrate the existence. In the case of lightning, it's been demonstrated. In the case of $YOU_FAV_DAITY, not so much. If the burden of proof fell on disproving the existence, I got one mean dragon in my garage.
bbhhh my friend.
Re:Goes both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
In Islam, a core belief is the belief of predestination (qada' and qadar) meaning what has happened, is happening and will happen is already written. As humans we are given the gift of "free will" [......]
You're a scientist and you can't see that those two things are mutually exclusive?
Here we go again... (Score:2, Insightful)
C64 is for games only, ZX-Spectrum is for real programmers only ;)