Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Greed, Zealotry, and the Commodore 64

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the and-nostalgia-flavored-candy dept.

Hardware 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.'"

cancel ×

645 comments

Higher Goals (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681566)

Was your beloved C64 designed by a KNIGHT?

So there. Is it any wonder no-one followed you for a mere monophonic sound chip?

Re:Higher Goals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681690)

Was your beloved C64 designed by a KNIGHT?

So there. Is it any wonder no-one followed you for a mere monophonic sound chip?

Worse, it was designed by a NIGGER. From NIGGERIA I mean NIGERIA. Coons and jigaboos. Hurry, mod this down to prove how not-racist you are!

Re:Higher Goals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681978)

Worse, it was designed by a NIGGER. From NIGGERIA I mean NIGERIA. Coons and jigaboos. Hurry, mod this down to prove how not-racist you are!

Yeah, it's great knowing some liberal wasted a mod point moding down an anonymous post. Keep drawing their fire!

Re:Higher Goals (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681874)

WANT!!!

Want NOW!!!

Seriously, though, this is really retro cool.

monophonic sound chip? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681570)

there is no ZX spectrum with a "monophonic sound chip"

the original 16 and 48k machines have no sound chip, the sound is software driven by toggling an I/O bit.
the 128k machines use the AY which is 3 channel

so there! :p

Goes both ways... (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681580)

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...

Re:Goes both ways... (0, Troll)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681616)

Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

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.

Re:Goes both ways... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681652)

Why don't you just pray it cured?

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681664)

There's a story of a man who was at his house when heavy rains poured down, the river crested, and the town flooded. As he stood on his front porch, the neighborhood completely under water, two men came by in a rowboat. "Can we take you to safety?" one called out.

The man shook his head. "No, thank you. I have faith in the Lord and He will save me."

A little later, the waters had risen and the man was on the roof of his porch when several folks happened along in a motorboat. "Say, there, would you like to come with us?" one of them called.

"No, thank you," the man replied. "I have faith in the Lord, and He will save me."

The waters continued to rise with alarming speed, and the man soon found himself on the roof of his house. A helicopter came by and hovered overhead as the pilot broadcasted, "Let me drop a line and get you out of there."

"No, thank you," the man called back. "I have faith in the Lord, and He will save me."

The man perished in the flood and went to Heaven, where he was met at the Pearly Gates by Saint Peter. Extremely saddened and upset, the man requested to talk to God. His request was granted.

"Heavenly Father," the man cried, "I had faith in you to save me from the flood, and you didn't come through for me!"

Astonished, God replied, "What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

Re:Goes both ways... (3, Interesting)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681850)

A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lion in a Kiev, Ukraine, zoo after he crept into the animal’s enclosure, a zoo official said Monday.

“The man shouted, ‘God will save me, if he exists,’ lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions,” the official said.

“A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery.”

Re:Goes both ways... (4, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681886)

Upon interview, God was reportedly commented:

"What? The guy was a fucking moron!"

Re:Goes both ways... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681982)

The GP was quoting a factual account of the event and you invented nonsense for a "counterpoint".... I'd hate to say that this is a common tactic among believers but sadly it is... You're in good company with West.boro Bap.tist, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts(Sr + Jr), etc.

Re:Goes both ways... (5, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681920)

“A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery.”

...and thanked God for her lunch?

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

fire5ign (675508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682094)

And all this story proves is that God is not a circus performer.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682398)

Im not entirely sure what this has to do with the article, or this discussion; do you mean to say that one man's foolishness or claims prove anything? What if I were to walk outside in a rainy day and say "if lightning REALLY exists, it will zap me now"? If I do not get struck, may I then proclaim that lightning doesnt exist?

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681944)

I like this - I think I'll stow it away for future use

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682252)

Nice to know God sets aside our free will on behalf of someone who prays to Him, as if He doesn't know what He's doing...

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

qeveren (318805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682382)

So, the moral of the story is that God is one of those annoying creeps who takes credit for the good deeds of others?

Primary Programming. (5, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681682)

It's easy to develop mental blind-spots when you are receiving your primary programming. Try teaching belief systems to someone who has been raised without myths and given reason and critical thinking skills. In that fully formed individual, they usually tear the mythos to shreds and do not accept it. When you are a child you do not have the thinking skills to reject fantastical ideas. Those basic thinking patterns are then used to "hang" your later learning off of. I'd be ashamed to handicap my children with such outmoded ideas. Religion fulfills a societal function only which is diminishing rapidly, at least in first-world nations.

Re:Primary Programming. (0)

chartreuse (16508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681846)

Try teaching belief systems to someone who has been raised without myths and given reason and critical thinking skills.

Such a person would be quite remarkable, but I doubt any such exists. Even science (yes, *S*C*I*E*N*C*E*) has its myths and belief systems, not all of which are true (or provable).

Rationality is under-appreciated by those who have less of it, but often wildly overvalued by many who think they have more — they tend to have an irrational, pre-Gödel belief that a)they are completely and totally rational, and b)rationality is all that's necessary to live a doubleplusgood life. And maybe they'd get away with it, if it weren't for the other 6.3 billion of us meddling with their perfect world.

Re:Primary Programming. (0)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681892)

There was no mental illness in Jesus' time. I have no doubt that he existed and has had an obviously enormous impact on our modern world but if he was alive today he'd be diagnosed probably with schizophrenia and given medication to alleviate his belief that he was the son of God. I speak from personal experience, I have schizophrenia. I respond well to my medicine and at the same time I remember the irrational periods. It makes me value the rational ones that much more. Science does take just as much faith as traditional belief systems. However, you can replicate over and over a nuclear explosion with Science. Try to do that through prayer.

Re:Primary Programming. (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682214)

> However, you can replicate over and over a nuclear explosion with
> Science. Try to do that through prayer.

So, you think that the power to build a nuke is all that? Try building a civilization without religion. So far every attempt has ended in Horrors far worse than any nuke unleashed to date. Worse than any Crusade or Inquisition even.

Not saying I believe in religion exactly (I'd describe myself as an agnostic) but more that our Reason isn't nearly perfected enough to challenge Religion as an organizing basis for a civilization yet. That doesn't bother me overly much when I consider we have only been using Science to look for answers to the big questions for such a short time.

Plus it's kinda like the Matrix, trying to Free a mind from Religion after a certain point in it's development is dangerous, far more likely to result in a Monster than an Enlightened Human.

History also tells us that is entirely possible to be a rational, enlightened person who can contribute to the advancement of human knowledge, be an effective leader, exhibit a good moral compass, etc while being religious. Very few examples of good Atheist role models, even in the sciences. Hopefully that changes eventually, but hope ain't science either.

Re:Primary Programming. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682330)

Try building a civilization without religion. So far every attempt has ended in Horrors far worse than any nuke unleashed to date. Worse than any Crusade or Inquisition even.

would you please give me an example that was worse than the inquisition ?

Re:Primary Programming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682368)

Try building a civilization without religion. So far every attempt has ended in Horrors far worse than any nuke unleashed to date. Worse than any Crusade or Inquisition even.

would you please give me an example that was worse than the inquisition ?

would mao or stalin work for you?

Re:Primary Programming. (1)

rockfistus (1445481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682322)

No meteor crashed into the Earth at the time, creating an Ice Age either.... Get off yer glacier asshole. Join us on the New England isle.

Re:Primary Programming. (1)

rockfistus (1445481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682308)

i love scooby quotes

Re:Primary Programming. (1, Interesting)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682158)

True.

My daughter was 8 years old when she found a flaw in Genesis so large that you could drive a dump truck through it.. She had been given a deck of memory matching cards by some classmate of hers that had a religious theme and one of the cards was about creation and she asked the question that even my mother can't/won't answer... "if it took 6 days for God(tm) to create the Earth, how long did it take him to make the other planets and stars?" I've never been prouder.

For you believers who still don't get it, try visiting whydoesgodhateamputees.com and tell me why your god will perform a "miracle" like "healing" a cancer patient but wouldn't heal my father's hand despite my prayers as a (fully believing) child. I'll wait but I won't take the "but maybe that is his plan" or other BS that simply means you don't know how to answer it... The bible clearly states if I prayed with my heart, he should have been healed so why the other "miracles"(most of which happened under the care of a doctor, not a preacher)??

Re:Goes both ways... (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681768)

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... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681774)

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... (0, Offtopic)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681806)

If there *were* a God, He would have given me mod points to mod down your post.

Re:Goes both ways... (2)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682180)

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this one managed to get to me.

Or maybe God didn't give you mod points because you would have modded down his post? Perhaps God didn't give me mod points to mod you down, because he's embarrassed to be involved in this rather pathetic argument?

Seriously, what's wrong with his post? He expressed a belief in a God. He didn't attack anyone, or scream at us that we're all going to burn in hell unless we follow the teachings of the Bible/Torah/Quarn/whatever. He simply expressed his view on the matter in a polite way. You, however, are being an asshat.

You probably consider yourself superior to the religious types, and throw them all in the one "evangelical nutcase" basket. Let's presume for a moment that you're right, and that everyone that believes in a higher power are all idiots who've never truly examined what they believe. They all want to convert you to their faith or they won't associate with you, and they all refuse to have a logical discussion about their beliefs.
If you really want to consider yourself better then these types of people, then be better than these types of people. Wanting to mod something down because you don't agree with it doesn't just make you as bad as these people, it makes you worse because you consider yourself to be above such things.

Let's leave close-minded bigotry to a small but loud group out of the religious crowd

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682324)

Mate, religious people are nutcases. It's not bigotry. Bigotry is hating someone because of the colour of their skin, or their race, or their hair colour.

People are ALLOWED to dislike people because of what they believe. Because the belief is not a fixed thing, it could easily be changed.

I win! (2)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682136)

Ok, I'm going to settle the issue for now! ;)

The proper position to take is igtheism. Basically being an igtheist means saying we can't talk about the existence or non-existence of God without defining better what God is. Right now, Physics is not complete. This means that until we have a full understanding of Physics (if ever, see Godel's incompleteness theorem) then the existence of God must remain undecided. God may very well be hiding behind the last theorem. Beware! ;)

Now, the argument for "God," exists but it is absolutely not anything that is given in a traditional teaching. It is meta-physical. Consider the most fundamental unit in our Universe, the Quanta. Anything that requires exactly more than a single quanta to represent is abstract. This means that the definition of the thing relies on having a relationship across multiple real things versus just being a singular real thing. Only Quanta are "real," everything else is abstract. The reality we experience through our senses is not real, it is spread over countless quanta and is far removed from the base, real, Universe which is just the quanta without relationships. There are abstract layers of reality on all scales and any relationships between them qualifies for a "name." One of these names is "God," and in a pantheistic viewpoint it can be the sum of all relationships in the totality of our Universe. God's thought on you is you. With any relationship qualifying as an entity in itself then any computation or action that causes another action is just as "real" as the reality you and I perceive. GOD can be thought of as existing within the network of actions in how we treat each other. If I am a right Christian and I treat you well, that tenet of how you treat others spread across many like-minded individuals has a measurable affect. The nebulous web of actions, or computations, has a reality that is equal in "realness" to what you and I experience through our senses.

So, God is undecided for now but of all the levels of reality there are plenty God could fit into. Just not a traditional definition of "God."

Re:I win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682298)

But God does exist - she's big, and she's black, and she's fucking pissed off with all of you.

Re:I win! (1)

CFTM (513264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682316)

Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but according to your meta-physical argument for God, I can't help but wonder did we not create god through collective consciousness? If God were to exist in the manner in which you theorize then God seems more a product of us rather than the other way around...

Re:I win! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682392)

=) Yup. The salient point to take away from that wall of text is: equivalence. Any abstract thing has an equal "realness" to any other abstract thing. Quanta are the only "real" things. The reality we experience through our senses is abstract. Therefore networks of actions also being abstract have an equal "realness" to our sensory perceptions. "God" can exist in practically any scale of the network of things. "Collective Consciousness" is a way to say that we compute - or have relationships that follow an order - in groups. This computation can be called "God." Not all abstract things have "coherence" as well. Some things persist longer than others. Those things are called phenomena and the concept of "God" is a phenomena in that it persists and has effects on our plane of "reality" while existing itself in a higher order of "reality."

Heresy, but it is an explanation that I can reason through.

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682270)

How did God give you your abilities. They were partially inherited, and partly environment. Where does a magic fairy come into it?

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681622)

Out of the entire artcile that's what you found most important......Sad

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681658)

Lol.. it looks like he found it in the GP's sig.

Sad is right. The article shouldn't have even mentioned religious cults or those that wish to deny them because of some cult belief of their own. It's only looking to attention to flame which you fell for.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681792)

What "cult belief" am I supposed to have in order to deny another's?

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682064)

I think that's pretty obvious.

"it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are." You have to have something that makes you think you are better then someone else. Especially when you centered that presumption around "Christians, especially Baptists, especially young-earth Creationists"

You figure it out, tell me, and we will both know. But if you have to ask me, then you're probably worse off then my generic portrayal of why it shouldn't have been in the article.

Re:Goes both ways... (1, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681778)

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...

Please continue (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681680)

Watching militant atheists and "No science please we're fundies" Christians argue is like watching 2 identical groups of monkeys flinging shit at each other, that is to say it is very entertaining.

Re:Please continue (1, Offtopic)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681798)

What's funny is that you still use the word "militant" to describe someone who's asserting exactly, and no more than, what the opposition is. You didn't call OP a "militant Christian", did you?

Get some perspective. [atheistcartoons.com]

Re:Please continue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681924)

So asserting your atheism for no reason other than to inform others that you are infact an atheist is perfectly normal non-confrontational behaviour?

Re:Please continue (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682238)

"Militant fundamentalist" is redundant. It's the duty of a fundamentalist to spread the word and defend the faith.

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681752)

That's funny... that's the same reason I, an atheist, get so miffy about Christians, especially Baptists...

And, I, as a Anonymous Coward and a Baptist, have never, ever been miffed by Aethists. Jon Blyth doesn't understand Christians. We don't hate those that disagree with us. We love them. It's one of the basic precepts of our religion! (Mk 12:31)

The Aethist posting above me and I agree -- the author of the article is horribly confused about religions.

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682010)

What the fuck is an "Aethist", you retard??

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681754)

Pfff... I am an ignostic and I get miffy about Atheists and Christians. You people don't realize how much better we are...

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681890)

an 'ignostic' is right...

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

MichaelKristopeit329 (1963778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681760)

you define yourself with the things you don't believe in.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

you think it's funny because you're also an idiot.

did your mother name you "SanityInAnarchy"? why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym which puts your sanity into question? what are you afraid of? do you expect anyone to believe you possess sanity?

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Goes both ways... (3, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681942)

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.

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

MichaelKristopeit330 (1963782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682146)

No one word is sufficient to define me.

I, an atheist.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682310)

Pretty sure you're the pathetic moron. Picking one word relevant word in a conversation doesn't mean that he defines himself by that one word. So shut the fuck up before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Re:Goes both ways... (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681780)

Right. The "whoosh" is that both groups think they're superior to each other, and get frustrated that no one will listen to their superior ways. Just because they think they are superior doesn't mean they are; similarly, just because you think you're superior doesn't mean you are.

Re:Goes both ways... (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681834)

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... (0)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682060)

I think the key is whether you're a dick to other people about your beliefs. And there are more than enough Pat Robertsons and Richard Dawkinses out there to fill this niche on both sides.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682290)

If you think Richard Dawkins is a dick, I hope you never meet Christopher Hitchens. Committed believers typically do come off as dicks. It seems to go hand-in-hand with being passionate about something.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

aarggh (806617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682370)

The only difference is that people like Richard Dawkins are actually very talented and educated people, but unlike the majority of religous fanatics who espouse "creationism" and "intelligent design", they are also very intelligent and rational in their thinking and present effective arguments. As opposed to Creationists arguments being based on "everything you believe is rubbish because the Bible says so!" I think the best quote I have ever seen is "Arguing over religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend!". I'm not saying there is or isn't a GOD, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the bible (created by MEN centuries AFTER the supposed birth of Christ) is nothing more than a means to an end for the established churches and religions around the world to exercise and justify torture, among other things, and complete control over people.

Re:Goes both ways... (0)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681848)

Mod parent up.

I'll add: it must be Monday, and traffic is low, so they needed a flamebait post that would cause torching in two dimensions. Hit count. The value of the Internet has been reduced to hit count.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682002)

He's probably joking, but I still wanted to reach through the intertubes and punch the guy in the balls.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682326)

I was going to say, way to close the rather banal article with a real hackle-raiser. I personally try not to get into arguments with theists. Its really annoying to watch them fail again and again and know they lack the wherewithal to understand why they fail.

Re:Goes both ways... (1)

paul42w (693767) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682378)

Christianity The belief that some cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense

The best C64 programs were 1 line long. (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681584)

10 SYS 49152

Re:The best C64 programs were 1 line long. (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681650)

The best C64 programs were zero lines long. They tossed the Commodore ROM in the trash, thereby freeing-up all 64 k of memory, and loaded directly from the 1541 (or 71) disk drive.

"64k should be enough for anybody." With GEOS you can turn your 64k machine into a clone of the original Mac (with WYSIWYG word processing, a trashcan, and everything). My church pastor did all his newsletters on the Commodore=64. And it doesn't cost $4000. More like $400. With music and color! ;-)

So that's it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681586)

"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."

Now I understand why all the Windows users at work hate me.

Because they're stupid and have retarded logic. I gotcha!

Speaking of greed... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681596)

Isn't this the third or fourth vaporware company to claim that it somewhere scooped up the rights to flay Commodore's carcass and smear the mutilated skin of the brand onto some boring x86 whitebox?

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:Speaking of greed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681668)

> the days of the architecture wars

One man's architecture war is another man's platform diversity and healthy competition.

Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681604)

I guess it was okay for its day, but even an Atari 800 or Apple II would have been better.

The Atari sound chip was not as good as the C64 sound chip, but the Atari had more colors (128) for superior still images (cough - nudie pics). If I didn't have a Commodore, I would sooner have an 8-bit Atari or Apple instead, not a Sinclair. I just don't get the fierce loyalty people have for that machine - it was a bit like owning a Jaguar video console when everyone else had the superior PS1 or N64 models.

BTW my C64 is white. Also it's actually a C128 (twice the speed and memory) and has S-video output for a clean image. Remaking the color scheme was a smart decision by Commodore.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681662)

If I didn't have a Commodore, I would sooner have an 8-bit Atari or Apple instead, not a Sinclair.

I'm sure most Spectrum owners would too, considering that those machines were, AFAIR, around three times the price.

The Spectrum was the cheapest computer that could play half-decent games, and its popularity became self-supporting as it lead more game developers to make games for it.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681746)

>>>those machines were

I never looked at the price of the Apple II, but I remember asking my parents to buy me an Atari 800 and it was $299 in 1983. I would be surprised if you could get a Spectrum for less money. The only computer at the time cheaper than that was a C64 at $199 (later dropped to $99). So I still don't know why I'd want a Spectrum. It isn't better technically, nor is it cheaper. :-)

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681776)

In the UK commodores were a LOT more expensive.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681800)

Well, the Apple II+ compatable - the Ace1000 (Which I had) was $1200, or thereabouts, and they were cheaper than the Apple.

As for the Atari, are you sure that wasn't the 400 that was $299? I seem to remember the 400 being theoretically attainable on my 12 year old budget, but the 800 - with (OMG!) real keys - was somewhere around double the price.

*The Ace was such an expensive purchase, at the time, that my parents made a copy of the check my grandfather sent. I learned to hand code in assembler and machine code on the 6502 with it.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681956)

I learned to hand code in assembler and machine code on the 6502 with it.

Me too but I had a different 6502 machine. Very lucky it didn't use a Z80. I might never have gotten there.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682284)

Well, the Apple II+ compatable - the Ace1000 (Which I had) was $1200, or thereabouts, and they were cheaper than the Apple.

As for the Atari, are you sure that wasn't the 400 that was $299? I seem to remember the 400 being theoretically attainable on my 12 year old budget, but the 800 - with (OMG!) real keys - was somewhere around double the price.

*The Ace was such an expensive purchase, at the time, that my parents made a copy of the check my grandfather sent. I learned to hand code in assembler and machine code on the 6502 with it.

Around 1979-80, when I was working for a local computer store in Indianapolis, IIRC, retail for an Apple ][+ was about $1200 for a 48K RAM configuration. Disk ][ controller with 140 kB capacity Apple-Branded Shugart 400 5.25" floppy drive, was an additional $495. Can't recall off the top of my head what the second drive cost.

I never had an Atari anything; but IIRC, the Atari 800 was $495 or thereabouts. The 1200XL was in the $1k world.

I seem to remember paying $59 or $69 for my C-64 at a Target department-store in the 1983-84 timeframe. What a wonderful little machine it was! I already knew 6502 assembly and BASIC(s) from my Apple 1 and Apple ][ days, so I had quite a bit of fun with the GPU and sound hardware in the C-64!

For the record, I too think it is an abomination to sell this new thing as a "C-64", unless it truly supports all the peripherals and I/O. I'd LOVE to play Jumpman again (anyone know of an OS X version?); but not on THIS thing!

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681808)

I never looked at the price of the Apple II, but I remember asking my parents to buy me an Atari 800 and it was $299 in 1983. I would be surprised if you could get a Spectrum for less money. The only computer at the time cheaper than that was a C64 at $199 (later dropped to $99).

In the UK, where the vast majority of Spectrums were sold, I remember the prices being more like 150 pounds for the 48k Spectrum vs over 300 for the Atari and Commodore; the Vic-20 was the Spectrum competitor, not the C-64.

Somewhere I have a couple of computer magazines from that era, but I can't find them right now.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681922)

Aha, 'Computing Today', January 1983, all prices in pounds before sales tax:

48k Apple II (no disk drives, etc): 525
16k Atari 800: 449
16k Spectrum: 125
48k Spectrum: 175
4k VIC-20: 120

I can't find a Commodore-64 ad.

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682028)

Actually, looks like I was wrong: it's hard to be sure, but the Atari and Spectrum prices appear to include tax... I think it was 15% at the time?

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682312)

As I remember it, the Sinclair ZX 48 had two main selling points for me.

More advanced BASIC commands, especially for graphics.
My best friend had loads of tapes and a double deck cassette player

Still got me a commodore 64 a couple of years later, and it thought me so much more about hardware and assembler.

I remember building a light-pen by putting a photo diode in an empty ball point pen case. I think I connected it to the Joystick port (or was it called USR?) Then by pointing at the screen (TV) and comparing the timing of some registers for drawing to the screen. I could plot the x-y coordinates where the pen was held.

I really hope my kid will be able to think something like that up by him self when he's 12. I'm not holding my breath though (partly because he is just six, and I would die if I tried)

Appeal of the Sinclair: QL, not ZX! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681678)

Obviously you never owned a Sinclair QL!

Re:Appeal of the Sinclair: QL, not ZX! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681794)

>>>sinclair QL

(1) Not an 8 bit computer.

(2) I had a two machines that were better, and therefore I wouldn't want the QL even if it had been offered to me. First was the C=128 in 1984(?) with 128k ram, 2 MHz speed, 640x480 graphics, and of course the huge commodore 64 library with music-quality audio and tons of games. THEN I got an Amiga which had similar specs as the QL, but with the Jay-Miner-designed Paula sound chip (SNES quality), Agnus graphics (4000 colors), copper/blitter processing, and preemptive "true" multitasking..... in 1985. Also four times the RAM (512K).

Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681686)

I just don't get the fierce loyalty people have for that machine - it was a bit like owning a Jaguar video console when everyone else had the superior PS1 or N64 models.

Er no, it was more like owning a PS1 when lots of people had a superior N64 (C=64) or Dreamcast (Amiga). Inferior equipment, but ubiquitous and with a massive cheap range of software.

An article I found interesting turned out to be (1)

jebblue (1160883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681610)

I found the article interesting until it turned into an attack on religion.

Re:An article I found interesting turned out to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681702)

Actually, it turned into an attack on non-religion.

Re:An article I found interesting turned out to be (1)

Hrdina (781504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682048)

Apologies if you're not in the US, but here any statement that is not 100% supportive of religion is considered an attack on it. That's why atheist billboards and bus adverts lead to righteous indignation and vandalism.

He's right. I enjoy things I remember! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681612)

and tomato soup, a grilled cheese, and a weak cup of tea is the best lunch in my book.

Amigas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681634)

I still often see local cable companies running Amigas to handle typewritten on screen broadcasts as well as weather.

First company to actually do something... (2)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681742)

CommodoreUSA seems to be the first company since the original Commodore's fall that has a plan to do something that both is associated with the original, and still is plausable. They actually have a case [commodoreusa.net] . A simple case with a Atom based motherboard is a realistic goal. As a retro gaming fan, I find the idea of having a PC in a C64 looking case really attractive, and if I get board of it, I can just use it as a standard PC. That takes all of the risk out of buying some specialty hardware, and the work out of trying to gut a real C64 and fit in a PC.

I know how you feel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681852)

~ethana2, Team Contact, Ubuntu NE LoCo

Silly me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681854)

For a second there, I got temporarily nostalgic for the times when one could lay down a few hundred currency units for a home microcomputer which had built in keyboard, media drives and ports all over which way for every little thing.

And then I looked down and saw I was typing on a laptop. How about that.

Atheism... (0)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681860)

Actually, it's worse than that.

You sound like an Esperantist. I suppose you randomly invite people to sleep on your couch too, just so they can learn Esperanto.

Re:Atheism... (3, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682068)

I teach people Sindarin, you insensitive clod. Why would I teach them a language that nobody speaks?

Missing ASCII art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34681916)

This is a terrible representation without the ASCII art blobs on the keys!

A laptop without a monitor? (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681968)

I never had a commodore64, the first computer I had was a 8086 PC with some kind of DOS on it. But the model in the article looks like a laptop only without a monitor. Make it flatter and cheap and I would buy it for the office/at home. Should be as flat as a laptop but way cheaper, like under 200$.

Sounds like Ubuntu (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34681990)

From the summary: "But look at it, all brown, ugly and lovely..."

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682008)

I can't hear you over my awesome hard drive in my IBM PC 5160.

True... True... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682166)

I also spread the evangelism of C64 and subseqently Amiga to all those poor souls with Ataris, including those poor lads with rubber Speccys. Golden times...!

American Baptists? (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682178)

Did the OP actually use American Baptists as an example of thinking you're better than everyone else (but being wrong)? Heh.

No need to write a mathmatical proof.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34682232)

...The poster just proved he is a d-bag by exhaustion.

That's not a Commodore 64 (4, Insightful)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34682332)

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! :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...