[Rant] Hostage Negotiation | ANN.lu |
Posted on 27-Jan-2004 02:07 GMT by Greg Ford | 260 comments View flat View list |
There are a group of people, at Amiga Inc, who have decided that their personal reasons
are more important than the interests of the company, employees, investors, the customers,
and even potential customers, and have ceased any and all effort to involve themselves in
anything at all that doesn't directly relate to these personal reasons, even if it means
earning an income against it's current mountain of debts. Amiga is being held hostage, and someone's looking to do something about it.
The only people that were in any position to remedy this situation were a group of investors who had already lost fortunes in Amiga Inc, and were asked for more money. They were concerned over the money already invested, but told that unless they invested more, they'd never see any returns on these investments ever. The investors didn't like this at all, they felt, exactly like
I said, that the small group of people at Amiga Inc, were literally holding Amiga hostage for more money. They did the only thing they could do, they hired Garry Hare to try to restart the
company and salvage something for the investors who had already invested large amounts of capital into the failed company.
The problem was, those few at Amiga quickly realised that this was an attempt to get around Amiga Inc's demands for more investment capital, and completely refused to cooporate with Garry Hare, and
even going so far as to publicly obfuscate to it's customers Garry's position in the failing company. Garry was instrumental in generating dozens of potentially profitable leads in his three month project that he spent representimg Amiga Inc at tradeshows and technology conferences. Many business contacts and developers became interested and attempted to follow up on these leads, only to be shunned by Amiga Inc who was making it very clear to the investors that they will not be subverted in this way. Either they would invest more capital like Amiga Inc demanded, or Amiga Inc would literally sit on their hands at Amiga Inc and do absolutely nothing, ensuring that the investors money would not produce any potential profits at all, and keeping Amiga Inc in a nonproductive stasis untill such a time when the investors will finally cave in to their demands and give them the investment capital.
To this day Amiga Inc. and the investors are still locked in a standoff, and it appears that neither will give in to the other. The investors are still looking for a way to controll the damage, to get at least a little back from their investment or even wrestle controll as to lead Amiga into promoting it's current technology, while Amiga Inc refuse to both (1) go bankrupt, instead hoping the investors will cave in to Amiga Inc's demands, or (2) try to generate an income, they will not do this as this would be giving in to the investors, who they want more money from.
There is no right or wrong being implied here, but the fact remains nothing will change untill someone gives in. It's quite apparent Amiga Inc believes that it will be the investors who will give in, as they speak quite publically about expecting the next round of funding to be recieved any day now. However I don't know if Amiga Inc realise that, as we speak, the leads that have been generated in spite of Amiga Inc's steadfast resolve to hold out against the investors are being contacted for information about the way in which
Amiga Inc has shunned them when they tried to follow up on these leads. I myself have been contacted although I couldn't offer them anything other than telling them Amiga Inc simply refused to follow up on inqueries I've sent them.
All I could gather from these people is that they are determined to do something about the situation. Unfortunately
I couldn't offer them much. It would be in my own interests as well for this to be resolved one way or the other as
my own plans are in stasis untill something happens as well. Someone has to give. Seeing as how I can't help them much
in any way, I'd like to hear from others who might have information that might help the investors in making their case
that Amiga Inc is intentionally keeping the company in stasis. I'm not sure if they are preparing legal action or whatever,
but to be on the safe side, if you could refrain from posting the details, and instead contact me and I'll give you
instructions on contacting the interested parties.
You can contact me at GregFordEmbedded@hotmail.com, and we can start from there. Thank you for your time.
|
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 151 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 28-Jan-2004 10:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 144 (samface): Excellent post, I can only second to that!
Problem remains, your logic *appears* twisted to many, because you seemingly don't accept that objectivity is relative to the subject. The only truly objective reasoning possible is based on the *absense* of sensoric information to the mind drawing its conclusions. This is the classic approach of Nihilism: There is no absolute truth, only absolute absence of truth, there's no absolute god, only absence of an absolute god, etc.
For example, if Amiga Inc. have never had the opportunity to fool or betray you, then there is no reason for you to believe that they would be assholes. For me it's an undeniable, irrevertable fact that Amiga Inc. are incompetent losers and liars, because I dealt with these people. This gain of information caused my lack of agnosis that helps you to draw objective conclusions. Stick to what you can prove. E.g. prove that Amiga Inc. were acting honorable to me. If you can't, you are in a lack of an objective reality. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 152 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Don Cox on 28-Jan-2004 10:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 148 (enough is enough): "Will you people stop it with the impersonations already?!
There's no need to make samface appear a bigger retard than he is. At least make it credible..."
He can easily send Christian a mail and become a "Trusted User". |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 153 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 11:03 GMT | In reply to Comment 151 (Oppressor): >E.g. prove that Amiga Inc. were acting honorable to me. If you can't, you are
>in a lack of an objective reality.
And by that comment, you step into the line of people making assumptions about me right along with the others. When did I claim that Amiga Inc. was acting honorable? Just like I've never made any claims that they would be acting dishonorable, I haven't made any claims that they would be acting honorable either. This is for a simple reason; I don't have the appropriate knowledge or information to make that kind of judgement. My only first hand experience with Amiga Inc. has been when I ordered my Amiga Party Pack, which arrived at my door within a week from my order. The product functions as advertised and I really have nothing to complain about. But that's all the first hand experience I have from dealing with Amiga Inc., and of course this does not suffice as evidence of anything. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 154 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 28-Jan-2004 11:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 153 (samface): >> E.g. prove that Amiga Inc. were acting honorable to me. If you can't, you are in a lack of an objective reality.
> And by that comment, you step into the line of people making assumptions about me right along with the others. When did I claim that Amiga Inc. was acting honorable?
Never I guess, that's why I've put "e.g." in front. You stepped into this self-constructed trap. :)
> My only first hand experience with Amiga Inc. has been when I ordered my Amiga Party Pack, which arrived at my door within a week from my order. The product functions as advertised and I really have nothing to complain about.
You see, and I bought the SDK, and while the price was very appropriate for this kind of software package, I was driven by false promises to spend a fair amount of work into it. That's a damage so highly subjective that they can never repair it. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 155 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 12:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 154 (Oppressor): >You see, and I bought the SDK, and while the price was very appropriate for
>this kind of software package, I was driven by false promises to spend a fair
>amount of work into it.
False promises? What did you expect, some kind of guarantee that your work on the AmigaSDK would automaticly become a successful hit and bring you millions in revenue? Of course anyone would talk about their project/idea/product as promising and a worthwhile investment, that's perfectly normal marketing.
Furthermore, I don't believe it's Amiga Inc.'s fault that the AmigaDE didn't become such success as they had expected. Several partnerships with for example Sharp and Nokia, fell apart due to factors outside of their influence. It has been a major setback and it's going to take alot longer to achieve what they originally planned to achieve, which is something we are going to have to adopt our expectations to. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 156 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jack Perry on 28-Jan-2004 12:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 151 (Oppressor): The only truly objective reasoning possible is based on the *absense* of sensoric information to the mind drawing its conclusions.
Don't be ridiculous. In such a case, there is no such thing as objective reasoning -- a highly questionable conclusion, given that you're reading this on a machine whose very creation is the result of objective reasoning.
For example, if Amiga Inc. have never had the opportunity to fool or betray you, then there is no reason for you to believe that they would be assholes.
Not true. If Amiga Inc. has had the opportunity to fool or betray someone I trust or care about, and if they took that opportunity, then yes, I would believe they were assholes. If they had the opportunity, but didn't take it, then no, I probably wouldn't.
Stick to what you can prove. E.g. prove that Amiga Inc. were acting honorable to me.
He can't, if he doesn't know all the facts in your case, and in any case your own reasoning seems pretty twisted and illogical to me (but samface has demonstrated that himself). |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 157 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jack Perry on 28-Jan-2004 12:37 GMT | In reply to Comment 156 (Jack Perry): To follow up on myself:
In such a case, there is no such thing as objective reasoning...
Objective reasoning is reasoning with regards to an external reality (the object), and respecting all the information I know about its reality external to myself and to my feelings. The only way to acquire such information is through the senses.
Subjective reasoning on the other hand is when I (the subject) interpret objective, sensory information according to my own internal prejudices, feelings, and assumptions; filtering out those things that are inconvenient to my point of view.
See for example subjective (defs 3b, 4c) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 158 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jack Perry on 28-Jan-2004 12:39 GMT | In reply to Comment 157 (Jack Perry): Hmm, do't know why the link didn't work; I had linked to both subjective and objective, but the word "subjective" appeared with the link to "objective" (I just went back & checked it) weird |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 159 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 12:46 GMT | In reply to Comment 158 (Jack Perry): >weird
Now that is just your subjective point of view rather than a fact, right? :-P ;-) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 160 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Lennart Fridén on 28-Jan-2004 12:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 99 (samface): My remark was on your logic in general, not in this specific case. It is quite possible to know something and still need to prove it.
My, I should've written that from the start, shouldn't I? :-) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 161 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 13:09 GMT | In reply to Comment 160 (Lennart Fridén): Just like I specified what kind of scenario that my logic was applied to, yes. :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 162 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Kronos on 28-Jan-2004 13:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 155 (samface): >Furthermore, I don't believe it's Amiga Inc.'s fault that the AmigaDE didn't become
>such success as they had expected. Several partnerships with for example Sharp
> and Nokia, fell apart due to factors outside of their influence.
Yeah, it was TAO's fault that AInc didn't check wether their plans would actually be
possible with intent until 1.5 years into the project....
And it was surely Sharp's fault that AInc couldn't deliever what they had promised, forcing
them to look for other solution (QTopia), and it was also their fault that the little content
AInc could/can deliever doesn't run on any other (PDA-)OS than CE .....
Don't know bout Nokia, but Sharp was 100% AInc's fault, and failing there made the whole
DE fail (developers jumping of, costumers thinking twice before joining with them). |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 163 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by pixie on 28-Jan-2004 14:09 GMT | In reply to Comment 134 (Martin): Bring back the censorship now! |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 164 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Vitruvius on 28-Jan-2004 14:43 GMT | For users, the most important thing is that Amiga is a combination of two things: hardware provided by Eyetech and other classic companies and software by Hyperion. They licenced the name Amiga from AI and it's important that they receive for the their efforts, the products being well succeded. If AOS4 and A1 are viable economically and users satisfied with it, it's obvious that Amiga will continue progressing, no matter it is a company, a motherboard or an Operating System. No problem... |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 165 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 28-Jan-2004 14:52 GMT | In reply to Comment 155 (samface): I fully agree. The only problem is that these idiots didn't give in. They are still around. That's what makes me angry. If they'd silently accepted their demise after all their failures, everything would be okay. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 166 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 28-Jan-2004 15:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 156 (Jack Perry): > Don't be ridiculous. In such a case, there is no such thing as objective reasoning -- a highly questionable conclusion, given that you're reading this on a machine whose very creation is the result of objective reasoning.
You wish this machine was the creation of objective reasoning, but that's highly subjective and can be disputed. The same traditions of objective reasoning at their time led to people being sentenced to death for heresy, etc. etc. Where do you draw the line? I don't draw a line between subjective and objective perception and reasoning at all, that's the whole point.
> Not true. If Amiga Inc. has had the opportunity to fool or betray someone I trust or care about, and if they took that opportunity, then yes, I would believe they were assholes. If they had the opportunity, but didn't take it, then no, I probably wouldn't.
I've read this three times, but I believe you fail to elaborate a contradiction here.
> He can't, if he doesn't know all the facts in your case, and in any case your own reasoning seems pretty twisted and illogical to me (but samface has demonstrated that himself).
Exactly my point...
If you care for the difference between "objective" and "subjective" so much (which I deny in entirety), how can "reasoning" in itself be objective? According to this stricter logic, it must be executed by some kind of subject. Otherwise we would have to assume some kind of absolute spirituality in nature, which I would immediately declare illogical, according to the same reasoning. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 167 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 15:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 162 (Kronos): And to get back to objective reasoning, do you have anything to back up your claims with? |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 168 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 15:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 165 (Oppressor): Huh? You don't like that they are still trying? You don't like that they don't just give up? Why does that bother you? |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 169 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 15:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 166 (Oppressor): LOL! This is just like with the claim that everything is relative; everything can't be relative because that would make the claim that everything is relative relative as well. :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 170 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 28-Jan-2004 15:37 GMT | In reply to Comment 168 (samface): For the n+1th time: I believe their stasis is withholding further development. I see no indications for "trying". |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 171 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 28-Jan-2004 15:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 169 (samface): ... which is no contradiction. :) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 172 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jack Perry on 28-Jan-2004 15:44 GMT | In reply to Comment 166 (Oppressor): You wish this machine was the creation of objective reasoning, but that's highly subjective and can be disputed. ...I don't draw a line between subjective and objective perception and reasoning at all, that's the whole point. ... If you care for the difference between "objective" and "subjective" so much (which I deny in entirety), how can "reasoning" in itself be objective?
LOL!!!
Like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass, a word means only what you want it to mean; no more, no less. In that case, there is no right or wrong; why are you wasting your arguing with me? You can't possibly expect anyone to take you seriously. Good day. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 173 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Kronos on 28-Jan-2004 16:54 GMT | In reply to Comment 167 (samface): Sure, the "we can't build the DE on intent" is on record under the title "St.Louis Earthquake".
The non-delivery of "exciting"/plenty content can still be be witnessed on AInc's homepage.
It just is a fact that AInc has nothing that could run on QTopia in the shops. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 174 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Don Cox on 28-Jan-2004 17:29 GMT | In reply to Comment 173 (Kronos): "Sure, the "we can't build the DE on intent" is on record under the title "St.Louis Earthquake"."
Do you have a link for that? |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 175 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 28-Jan-2004 20:58 GMT | In reply to Comment 171 (Oppressor): That depends on if you look at it from a philosophical standpoint or from a physical standpoint.
relativity
n : (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
relativism
n : (philosophy) A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
You see, from a philosophical standpoint, the theory that everything would be relative is an impossibility since you cannot claim that there are no such thing as an absolute truth as an absolute truth.
But then, since I'm no philosopher, I agree with you. :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 176 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 28-Jan-2004 21:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 175 (samface): > You see, from a philosophical standpoint, the theory that everything would be
> relative is an impossibility since you cannot claim that there are no such thing
> as an absolute truth as an absolute truth.
And who said that's an absolute truth? |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 177 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by 3seas on 28-Jan-2004 22:56 GMT | In reply to Comment 142 (Fabio Alemagna): "In Reply to Comment 130 (3seas):
> Shaking my head I seem to gravitate towards how all this BS might be used as an
> some warped excuse to claim some sort of ownership over AROS by the investors in > Amiga Inc. saying AROS only exist as a result of incompetance of Amiga Inc.
??? Come on, Tim, now you're exagerating just a "tiny" bit :-)"
Yeah, I suppose I need to get more practice if I want to compete with Darl....
:D
Of course the point I was trying to make was that there are numerious levels of effort, talent, resources and finances that were put into or towards Amiga Inc in the hope moving forward, besides the big dollar investors.
Maybe the question should be one of "Is there anyone who pursued productive directions with Amiga Inc and/or their products that didn't come to a stagnet standstill?" (regardless of whatever level you may be at --- from consumer to developer to high dollar investor...) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 178 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Christer on 29-Jan-2004 06:28 GMT | Why don't we start to pile upp for a bounty for buying out the Amiga OS? If we can collect so much money to get Mozilla ported then we should be able to get allot for Amiga OS. The person/company then gets a share in the company that corresponds to the money he has put in.
Comments?
/Christer |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 179 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by -D- on 29-Jan-2004 08:55 GMT | In reply to Comment 176 (Fabio Alemagna): > You see, from a philosophical standpoint, the theory that everything would be
> relative is an impossibility since you cannot claim that there are no such
>thing as an absolute truth as an absolute truth.
Hmmm...you could simply say that outside the possibility
of absolute truisms, all things are relative..:)
Or, you could also say that within the confines of human
perception, all things are relative, since human
perception and communication does not have the capacity
to "reference" one thing completely independant of
anything else (hence the term), therefore it cannot
be "absolute" to us, and we cannot correctly determine
things which are outside the realm of our sense faculties.
There is also the philisophical standpoint which basically
states that "objective" discussion of forms/ideals/absolutes
is entirely meaningless, since the discussion actually has
nothing to do with those forms/ideals/absolutes themselves,
and it is therefore impossible to gain any "real" knowledge
of them (basically, you can't accurately teach a blind person
what "green" is). :) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 180 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 09:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 176 (Fabio Alemagna): The claim "everything is relative" must be an absolute truth in order to be true, otherwise *everything* is not relative. Simple logic, Fabio. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 181 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Lennart Fridén on 29-Jan-2004 10:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 180 (samface): "This sentence is false."
Unless you guys want to spend time debating Wittgenstein et al, we'd better drop this now folks. :-) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 182 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 10:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 179 (-D-): You're talking about the world of ideas vs the material (external) world. But then, does not the concept of "everything" also cover the world of ideas?
Well, one could successfully argue that every*thing* only covers actual things and objects of the material world and that "everything is relative" as an absolute truth belongs to the world of ideas and is therefore not contradicting itself.
However, if the claim "everything is relative" is only a part of the world of ideas, it's per definition not an objective reality, now is it?
There are many sides of this coin and we could make this a 10,000+ posts thread if you want. However, I think I've made my point regarding that discussion about subjectivity vs objectivity; please reconsider your claim that there would be no difference between subjectivity and objectivity, because just like with the concepts of the world of ideas and the external (material) world, we need these concepts in order to maintain a constructive debate. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 183 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 10:32 GMT | In reply to Comment 181 (Lennart Fridén): Oh come on! Just as things were getting interesting... :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 184 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 10:33 GMT | In reply to Comment 181 (Lennart Fridén): By the way, that sentence is true. :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 185 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 10:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 184 (samface): Why? Like I said earlier, I'm not a philosopher.
function trueorfalse($sentence) {
if ($sentence) :
return "true";
else :
return "false";
endif;
}
$sentence = "This sentence is false.";
echo "The sentence is " . trueorfalse($sentence); |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 186 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jack Perry on 29-Jan-2004 11:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 179 (-D-): There is also the philisophical standpoint which basically states that "objective" discussion of forms/ideals/absolutes is entirely meaningless, since the discussion actually has nothing to do with those forms/ideals/absolutes themselves, and it is therefore impossible to gain any "real" knowledge of them (basically, you can't accurately teach a blind person what "green" is). :)
The problem with Kant's point of view is that we are not, in fact, blind. Nearsighted, yes; blind, no :-) If we were blind, there would be no point to science. Kant succeeded at proving nothing more than that good philosophy begins and ends with Plato and Aristotle. :-)
And that's a subjective statement :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 187 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Minuous on 29-Jan-2004 11:23 GMT | Come back Commodore, it was so much better in those days!! Now the Amiga is stuck with this bunch of Amino amateurs, I think that just about any of us could do a better job than Bill and Fleecy...
No, I'm not anti-Amino, I code for AmigaOS not MorphOS...but I still think Amino are becoming a bit of a sad joke...
Can we get Mehdi Ali back please so he can make things better for us :-) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 188 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 29-Jan-2004 12:00 GMT | The damn problem is that you can always try to shut up people with regard to an alleged objectivity. May there even be an absolute truth, we as humans will never be able to fully grasp it. Hence it would be evenly valid to pretend there would be no absolute truth at all, because any proof of the opposite would exhaust our brains anyway.
What fits to our brains, on the other hand, is all that matters for a discussion. Compiling a pile of dictionary entries and citations from philosophers isn't proof for anything, and the least it proves that someone is exrtraordinarily "objective" or even "clever". The problem at hand, as I see it, is: We have two camps, how do we become one camp again. Each humiliation will be returned twice as fiercely, each collection of "objective facts" (with items unconsciously left out) will provoke another collection of "objective facts" (with different items unconsciously left out). We're running in circles - thanks to objectivity. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 189 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Vitruvius on 29-Jan-2004 12:36 GMT | In reply to Comment 187 (Minuous): Hey, don't desperate! AInc made partnerships with Eyetech and Hyperion for developing hardware and software and the projects are progressing, in spite of short fund. There are new hardware, OS4 is getting closer. Developing and refactoring ASM and C code (OS 3->4) is a very difficult effort. But the guys are doing a great the job, progressing very well.
AInc is a tiny company, the comments from Fleecy I've read seems to me they wants to move forward, but things are not easy. They are managers of the Amiga Trademarks and licenses and is not a development company like Apple. If you really like Amiga, please support Amiga developers (hardware and software) and make it move forward. If you like Morphos, also a good choice, believe it, support their developers, and forgive the Amiga name, the "Amiga product" certificate and the support for newer OS4 Apps. It's hard to say, but it's the obvious reality: they are fighting one which other.
You may also choice using a 10 year old hardware (like me and my good and old A1200), but will not making money for Genesi or Amiga+Eyetech+Hyperion and IMHO it's the worst cenario for everybody. My hardware is not usable anymore. I want better games, better apps and enjoy myself with multimedia, internet and tons of megabytes. That's why when AOS4 is out I'll buy an A1 to use in my business. It' may cost more, but if you want to have and Amiga or Pegasos Computer, no other way. Don't be panic, just upgrade when it's done, continue coding and supporting it. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 190 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Anonymous on 29-Jan-2004 12:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 189 (Vitruvius): > They are managers of the Amiga Trademarks and licenses and is not a
> development company like Apple.
Kind of true, at least the part about "not like apple" but A) Apple is a Hardware company, as well as software, they sell a complete computer. B) Amiga IS a developement company, a software only company.
They didn't invest > 4 million dollars to license workbench roms and sell the name to third parties. They themselves said there's little future in that. AmigaDE is their only hope for success, they already spent AmigaOS licensing profits. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 191 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Jack Perry on 29-Jan-2004 12:58 GMT | In reply to Comment 188 (Oppressor): The damn problem is that you can always try to shut up people with regard to an alleged objectivity.
No, you are confusing passion with objectivity. "The damn problem" (as you so calmly put it) is that people confuse passion with reason, and argue from passion instead of reason. They drop the necessary "reasonable skepticism" and agree or disagree with arguments based on the conclusion of the argument, rather than the actual statements. Politics generally works this way.
Denying and slandering objectivity do nothing to fix this problem; they only make it worse. What we need is to discuss matters calmly and dispassionately, with a frank statement of what we know about the external reality (documents posted from court cases help in this regard). We need to acknowledge that we don't deserve anyone's belief just because we say something is so (take note Greg Ford, BBRV, Fleecy and others). We need not only to make our opinions known, but we need to realize that, given the same facts and different assumptions, other people can come to different conclusions. Unless we can demonstrate that these assumptions don't square with reality, we owe that person respect for her/his point of view. That's objective, philosophical reasoning. Associating your opponent with witch-burners, Nazis, Communists, BAF, BMF, &c is ignorant.
While I'm dreaming, I'd like world peace... :-( |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 192 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 13:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 191 (Jack Perry): >Unless we can demonstrate that these assumptions don't square with reality, we
>owe that person respect for her/his point of view.
Amen! Seriously, you really hit the head of the nail here. Thank you for stating this so adequately. =) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 193 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Oppressor on 29-Jan-2004 13:39 GMT | In reply to Comment 191 (Jack Perry): You're so right, and for all that it won't stop people from adapting god, truth or objectivity to their subjective reasoning, if it helps to give weight to their words. Denying objectivity works, when objectivity (as a rhetoric tool) is falsely applied to destroy a discussion. If your opponent defiles all kinds of rhetoric tools that most people silently agree on under normal circumstances, then you're thrown back to nothing but logic itself, and you have to deny the presence of something, in favour of the absence of the deniable.
There is nothing to discuss if people don't agree on some kind of progress or conclusion as the least common denominator. At other occasions I have no problems putting "objectivity" into the scale myself, but only with just that ton of salt of skepticism. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 194 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 15:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 193 (Oppressor): I think I'm finally able to pin-point the problem here; we don't seem to have share the same meaning of "objective reasoning". You see, just because someone makes use of objective facts to support their reasoning, that doesn't neccessarily mean that their reasoning is objective. You see, everything that goes beyond the extent of what we know as objective facts, like your own reasoning based on those facts, is actually NOT objective reasoning.
To get back to Lennart's example of me beeing the witness of when he kills my boss; objective reasoning is that I know that he killed my boss as a matter of fact, but assuming that he has killed more people than my boss goes beyond what I know as a fact and is therefore not objective reasoning.
So, if people would be a bit more aware of what is objective reasoning and what is their own subjective point of view, we would have a much better understanding for each other's different standpoints, don't you think? |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 195 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 29-Jan-2004 15:24 GMT | In reply to Comment 180 (samface): > The claim "everything is relative" must be an absolute truth in order to be
> true, otherwise *everything* is not relative. Simple logic, Fabio.
False, Sammy, very false. That's the way the reality looks for whoverer it looks like that, hence it's relative, not absolute.
Simple logic, Sammy. |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 196 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 16:02 GMT | In reply to Comment 195 (Fabio Alemagna): Regardless if it's a subjective point of view or an absolute truth, it's still a contradiction to state that everything is relative since both such absolute truth and/or subjective point of view would have to be relative in itself.
But then again, that's just the philosophical point of view. I'm not a philosopher and prefer the physical point of view, which is dimsissing the above reasoning as just a part of the world of ideas rather than the real world of physics. :-P |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 197 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Lennart Fridén on 29-Jan-2004 17:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 186 (Jack Perry): Kant's philosophy shouldn't be understood as if we were blind, but rather that we all carry a pair of sunglasses making it impossible to behold the real world or "the thing for itself" (das ding an sich). We do, however, see our "own worlds" or "the thing for me" (das ding für mich). |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 198 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Lennart Fridén on 29-Jan-2004 17:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 196 (samface): "But then again, that's just the philosophical point of view. I'm not a philosopher and prefer the physical point of view, which is dimsissing the above reasoning as just a part of the world of ideas rather than the real world of physics."
Plato would tend to call your real world for nothing but a shadow of the true real world. Then again, I'm a philosopher but I never said I agreed with Plato. :-) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 199 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by samface on 29-Jan-2004 17:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 198 (Lennart Fridén): LOL! How about a celebrity deathmatch between Einstein and Plato? ;-) |
|
Hostage Negotiation : Comment 200 of 260 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 29-Jan-2004 20:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 196 (samface): > Regardless if it's a subjective point of view or an absolute truth, it's still a
> contradiction to state that everything is relative since both such absolute
> truth and/or subjective point of view would have to be relative in itself.
Didn't I already point out that that is false?
In no way "everything is relative" is an absolute stament: that statement, in fact, is relative to the point of view of whoever made it.
You like to look at it from a physical point of view, you say, thus: do you disagree with Einstein in that space and time are relative quantities?
> But then again, that's just the philosophical point of view. I'm not a
> philosopher and prefer the physical point of view, which is dimsissing the
> above reasoning as just a part of the world of ideas rather than the real
> world of physics. :-P
I'm not able to grasp the sense of the above... care to translate in English? :-) |
|
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|