On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:10:30 +0000, Renk wrote in message <e495a106ff5f31448739e79d34138c192789b...@mbs2.ad.jyu.fi>:
> > > ..a pointer to your previous message would help here, this thread > > is broken (in at least my MUA) and getting hard to follow. > > Maybe we just have some cultural misunderstandings? ..no, in this case we _also_ have a broken thread at in least my MUA (claws-mail 3.8.1) which "helps" aggravate cultural _etc_ misunderstandings, which again stalls meaningful discussion of the new things you guys wanna do here. Etc. > The way I see it - if you want to make a statement in a discussion, > you have to read what has been said before. No matter how hard it is > to follow. No matter how long. ..agreed, that includes even the missing bits that I asked for. > Everything else is impolite - you're > in essence sending the message "I don't really care what you've been > saying already, but I think my opinion is so important so that I > neither need to react to what you've been saying previously nor to > care not to repeat what's already been solved - but I expect you to > react to what I have to say." You don't want to follow the > discussion because it's so complicated, that's fine, but then don't > speak up. ..you assume here that I have the complete picture but that I'm to lazy to read it all. The way this thread is broken, makes me doubt I have the complete thread or picture, and chances are I'm not alone, so I speak up. > The categorical imperative will tell you that it doesn't work if some > people want special treatment. > > In the event Lorenzo argues for instance against loading terrain far > out for radar purposes. Nobody has proposed to do that, so it's a > strawman argument in the first place. Vivian has mentioned the > dangers of the approach, I have agreed with him, so what is the > possible point of arguing against something no one wants to do? > Replying to that only keeps the discussion in one more unproductive > cycle and doesn't make anything clearer. He argues for using > visibility as a device to adjust framerate, ignoring all arguments > brought against seeing visibility as a mere tool to adjust framerate, > and despite James sketching a LOD bias system as a well-defined > alternative way to get framerate adjusted using LOD ranges. So he > doesn't bother to read what Vivian, James and I have been saying - > why should it then be my job to give him pointers? > > The way I see it, if you want to criticize something, you first make > sure you understand the problem so that you can deliver a meaningful > critique, and ideally you can even suggest a better alternative. If > you speak without understanding the problem, you're choosing a very > unfriendly way to ask others to take their time and explain it to you > when understanding it should have been your job in the first place. ..you assume here that I have the complete picture but that I'm to lazy to read it all. The way this thread is broken, makes me doubt I have the complete thread or picture, and chances are I'm not alone, so I speak up. > If you don't understand, you ask politely for an explanation, only if > you understand and disagree, you can criticize. The way I see it, if > you have criticized without understanding, you owe an apology. ..perfectly happy to do that, if it helps fix a broken down thread or discussion. The appropriate time to criticize without understanding, comes when it's getting clear that some critical bits are missing, so those bits can be put in their proper place to help the understanding. ..keep in mind, everyone here is criticizing you and everyone else here because they _think_ they may know a better to do what they _think_ you are proposing, without neccessarily understanding properly how you are thinking, or even what you are thinking. :o) > The way I see it, arguments should be based on what's correct, not > what's familiar. I'm repeatedly observing that familiar flaws are > seen as completely acceptable, ..aye, take e.g. the ATI viewport fix for the proprietary driver which I get shoved down my throat using the X.org radeon driver, I could have tested it if anyone had bothered to tell me how to disable it. > but any flaw in new features is jumped on eagerly. ..these are super easy to spot, exactly because they are new and stand out. The old crud is hidden because it is not properly understood, and not neccessarily seen too. ..if you go back a few years, you'll find me talking about black planes on ATI cards with the X.org radeon driver, that no-one else here saw, because they were all running nvidea drivers on nVidea hardware. ..in a non-radeon world, this approach _works_ for all the nvidea people, and they can then take their time to try figure out how to fix this properly once we the ATI viewport fix tested on the X.org radeon etc free drivers too. > I'm even observing that any change is held to the > standard of what was previously installed and is perceived wrong if > different. In the forum, there was an argument that XXXX 012345Z > 23010KT 5000 SHRA SCT012 BKN018 OVC060 15/11 Q1010 is wrongly > interpreted because it comes out much darker than in 2.0.0 - > illustrated with screenshots showing 3/8 cloud cover. The familiar > trumps the correct, even given that 3/8 cloud cover is definitely not > what the METAR says - it doesn't matter that we now have the correct > cloud cover specified by the weather, it matters that it's no longer > what is familiar, and this isn't the way to make an argument. Having > z/Z control visibility because one is used to it is no argument for > or against it. > > The way I see it, arguments should be backed up with evidence. The > memory consumption of loading 20 km (50 km, 100 km) of terrain is a > number in a certain range - we don't need to toss concerns back and > forth if we go ahead and measure the number, and we should base > decisions on evidence rather than belief if we can get the evidence. > > I don't think these are grossly unreasonable foundations for > meaningful, productive discussions. I'm not in a position to make > anyone else adopt such standards as the goal for having a > discussions, but could we perhaps give it a thought? > > * Thorsten ..ayup, and you should ask for possibly missing bits etc before you get annoyed, rather than get annoyed first and then ask. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
