logo Sign In

Tiptup

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
26-Apr-2012
Posts
1,696

Post History

Post
#274305
Topic
Cisco/Apple Settle iPhone Suit
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/274305/action/topic#274305
Time
Jedisage, Microsoft owns a patent on the 86-DOS language and all of the other OS languages it made after purchasing it.

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
It was certainly luck to begin with, but it was parleyed into much more. When your licensing agreement with the computer manufacturer states that they will pay will pay a royalty on every computer they sell, whether it has DOS or OS/2 (remember that one?), then the computer manufacturer would be stupid to not put DOS on the computer that they are paying a royalty for anyways.


The business deals that Microsoft made were very good for them and I can't pretend that luck had much to do with that. But otherwise, the development of IBM clones and Microsoft's freedom to capitalize upon their existence was rather lucky . . . though, then again, had they been less aggressive with their business deals when they encountered that situation, they probably would not have achieved the same level of success based on that luck. So, I guess you're right.
Post
#274187
Topic
Cisco/Apple Settle iPhone Suit
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/274187/action/topic#274187
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Don't kid yourself. They manipulate like you wouldn't believe.

[/off topic]


True to a large degree, but none of that would matter if they didn't have a patent on a programming language. Nobody buys a Microsoft operating system because it's well made or because its features are so fantastic. They'd have little power to manipulate people if they were forced to compete on that level. It's mostly luck.
Post
#274062
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/274062/action/topic#274062
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
You sure about that, TipTup? I heard he was thinking about directing a movie based on the Nickelodeon show "Avatar".


In an Entertainment Weekly interview that I read of him, he clearly expressed his disdain for directing any stories that are already known to the world. In simple terms, I'm guessing he likes his gimmicky story twists and tricking people.
Post
#274061
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/274061/action/topic#274061
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX

Never got into that one much. Tried playing it a few times, but ultimately found it annoying and not too entertaining. Perhaps I didn't give it enough of a chance. I had high hopes for it since it was subtitled Super Mario World 2 and all, but I felt it didn't live up to SMW (which was a near perfect Mario game in my opinion. Absolutely fantastic. Especially if you played it from the context of upgrading from an NES with the wonderful SMB3 to a SNES when it first came out). The one thing about SMW that has always bothered me from day one is that the gumbas don't quite look right. They look more like balls with feet than walking mushrooms.


SMW2: Yoshi's Island was an absolutely brilliant game. I only consider Super Mario Brothers 3 to be superior and that's only in a purely historical sense. Each level offered entirely new mechanics, challenges, and fun. That and the game was an exploration/find-everything gamer's dream. I still get orgasmic when I think of it today. And I shouldn't forget to mention how the graphics in the game were amazing. Not only were they pretty (in their crayon-drawn style) but the most impressive effects were actually used for gameplay purposes in the vast majority of cases! ::sigh::

The only downsides to the game were the sound of Mario's shrill crying (which you really wouldn't hear too often once you got good at the game) and the fact that the overworld map was so linear and closed.


About Nintendo Power though, I had always hated their reviews since they almost never offered real opinions unless it was absolutely safe for them to do so. But, other than that, I liked NP for the "inside" Nintendo information they often provided (with the Donkey Kong Country VHS being the pinnacle of that). In the SNES era they were the most bold when it came to their criticism and comparisons with competing consoles. With Gamecube it was almost like idiots were running the magazine. And, now with the dominance of internet, gaming websites I see virtually no reason to get a print magazine, much less Nintendo power.
Post
#273852
Topic
That's quite enough for now
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273852/action/topic#273852
Time
Heh, I'm thinking of leaving this forum simply because I spend enough time on the internet to badly affect the other pursuits of my life (and that's at only about an hour or two a day). I only came here because of the supposed OT release and it turns out that it was so worthless that I never even bothered purchasing it.

Hmm, I would hope that ric never considered me to be a troll though.
Post
#273845
Topic
a rumor from thedigitalbits.com...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273845/action/topic#273845
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
And even if Lucas were to relent and release it how this "core group" wanted them, the bitchin' would never, ever stop. It just wouldn't. That's the nature of Star Wars fans now. If everything was perfect except for one small oversight that nobody at Lucasfilm caught but some zealot fan caught, all hell would break loose and the bitchin' at Lucas would continue. It just would.


Jumpman, bringing up a point like this is irrelevant for multiple reasons. I have little respect for people who use it over and over again. It is most notably stupid because it assumes that there is no merit behind attempting a DVD-dedicated release of the theatrical version of Star Wars (and its two sequels) simply because there might be a few remaining idiots out there who would still complain about something additional, or simply because some mistakes might be made in the process. The theatrical versions of the original Star Wars films deserve plenty of respect (read and reply to Zombie's post if you disagree) and the demand for them is more than sufficient (even if it were from a small minority of Star Wars fans). People shouldn't cower in fear from doing the right or at least sensible thing simply because it cannot be executed perfectly. If you can explain otherwise (why your quoted argument may be cogent despite my objections) then I would suggest you do so. If you however cannot, I suggest you stop using the argument and thereby stop making yourself look foolish by repeating it.
Post
#272330
Topic
For MST3K Fans
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272330/action/topic#272330
Time
Riff Trax are awesome. I've heard the one for Star Wars Episode I and the one for Fellowship of the Ring. Both were incredibly funny, but the TPM was even more hilarious for me (perfect for any OT fans). I intend to watch more of these fairly soon. Most of the movies they have done this for really deserve to be ripped apart.
Post
#272327
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272327/action/topic#272327
Time
Urrgh . . . must reply to blatant illogic . . . .

Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Originally posted by: Tiptup
As for what you said about "getting emotional over video games" and being "nutty," I stated no logical fallacies in response to that. With the normal, logical understanding of your statement, you clearly communicated that people who "get" emotions about a games are being "nutty" in your "opinion." As you said, you "indirectly" called me nutty. Nowhere did I discuss the "direct" or "indirect" nature of your words; therefore, you make a clear logical fallacy when you accuse me of such. (Is this making sense to you?)

Direct and Indirect statements are implied.

Uhh, by who and where exactly?

I only said the following:

"You called me nutty, and if I can't make a lighthearted reply to that then you're the one who clearly has issues."

At no point in that sentence did I ever imply the notion that you communicated your words to me in a "direct" or "indirect" fashion. I simply said that you "called me nutty." If you disagree with my assessment of that sentence, then you must argue from that sentence alone.


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Originally posted by: Tiptup

I didn't say "fuck you" by itself, nor do I believe "fuck you" to be lighthearted on its own

You stated that “if I cant make a lighthearted reply” which was “Fuck you too”

The “too” at the end does not make it any less of a direct statement to the person you replied to. The “too,” simply says I am saying Fuck you, to you (me) since something you (I) said got to me (you).

lol So, let me get this straight: You believe that the "too" says that you are saying "fuck you" to yourself since something you said got to me? lol

Good Lord.

Are you even following the logical progression of your own arguments in this thread, Ghost? I never said anything about the directness or indirectness of "fuck you too." That was obviously very direct and I clearly meant it to be direct. You're arguing nothing of substance at this point. If you wish to stick to the argument then go back to what you were originally arguing.


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Originally posted by: Tiptup
(in general). In fact, you're the one making another logical fallacy by stating that I believed or said that.

You did say that though, its right there (above). By stating so, this also implies you believe it as well. You believe a response of “Fuck you too” to be lighthearted otherwise you would not have said it and then tagged it as a lighthearted response.


lol, you didn't even read everything that I actually said. It would be nice if you tried to comprehend my words before immediately replying to them. This is getting very brilliant.

I said that "fuck you too" was lighthearted in the context that it was given. I never said that "fuck you," by itself is lighthearted. Therefore, I never said or believed that "fuck you" was lighthearted. It's not that complicated. Just use a little brainpower, please.


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Originally posted by: Tiptup
If you actually go back and look, you will see that I said, "Fuck you too." This can easily be understood as lighthearted by virtue of the fact that you never said "fuck you" first (and thus my reply was silly),


This may be debated but something gets lost in the translation when done online, its not real life.


Anything may be debated, but I contend that the context should have been clear to you. Maybe you were having a bad day, or you just wanted to be antagonistic, but you clearly misread what I was saying. Hell, you even devoted an entire post to admitting that you didn't realize the humor in my statement. That's not my fault.


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Say someone was giving a speech and said something that these people are crazy for one reason or another and someone in the crowd raised their hand and said I have a question “your crazy,” that’s silly.


That sentence is great. It truly displays your precise logical skills.


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Now using that same situation replace “your crazy” with “fuck you,” two clearly different situations and possible outcomes.


Yes, but you're now making the clear logical mistake of turning a very specific situation, with a specific context, into a more generic situation, with a generic context, and the two are not equivalent by any means. The generic conversation could potentially be lighthearted (especially considering how "fuck you" might have been said). For instance, let's imagine that the person giving the speech said, "In my opinion, people who oppose the violent torture and dismemberment of innocent puppies are insane!" Then let's say I respectfully raised my hand and gained permission to ask a question, stood up, said "fuck you" (with a big smile on my face), and then walked away. That would be a very lighthearted response on my part. So, as you can see, specific contexts are very important to people when we try to analyze something with logic. Does this make sense?

Uhg, and let me clarify yet again: I said "fuck you too." I didn't say "fuck you" by itself (as the person in your generic example did). In case you aren't noticing, I'm trying to use precise logic here and it would be nice if you could do the same. You can use precise logic, correct?


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
To wrap up, if we wanted to get really technical you committed the fallacy of ad hominem (against the person). Which is ultimately the biggest logical fallacy and there is no way of getting around that your reply was totally flawed from the beginning with the initial response of “Fuck you too.”


Wait . . . .

"Against the person"? Are you somehow saying that I made an ad hominem attack on you? . . . by saying "fuck you too"?

I suppose that the phrase "fuck you too" can be considered an attack in a very loose sense (it's technically a curse), but if you actually believe that it somehow was an ad hominem attack on you (a confusion of your personal character with the logical discussion of the issue), then I am made speechless. That really takes some sloppy thinking on your part (and some incredibly wild assumptions). I'm afraid that you clearly don't know what ad hominem means.
Post
#272253
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272253/action/topic#272253
Time
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
All right kids, those that like games for their stories on one side of the gym, and those that like to pick-up-and-play twitch reflex on the other.

What we get out of them may be different, but ultimately we're gamers and we have enough people in the World trying to bring us down without being at each others' throats. We should be sticking together and respecting each others' opinions.

Fair enough?


I gueeess . . . .



In all seriousness, you do seem like a generally okay guy, GhostAlpha, so I'll just say that I honestly had no intention to offend you with the word "fuck" (at least not too much).