Hacking supercard ds two update?

[rikuumi]

 

[DeltaBurnt]

If someone doesn't know what the word beta means, I hope that program not only erases data, I hope it ruins their life.

Stop!
Reality time!

If you really feel that way, you need to get up off the computer and go hang out with some non-virtual people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ
Google went around asking random people what a "browser" was.
Most people did not know.

And you're saying that if somebody doesn't know what the beta development stage of software is, they deserve to have data erased and their life ruined?

I think it was more like, if the people don't head the warning that the beta producers should be giving you.

 

[Zetta_x]

If someone doesn't know what the word beta means, I hope that program not only erases data, I hope it ruins their life.

Stop!
Reality time!

If you really feel that way, you need to get up off the computer and go hang out with some non-virtual people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ
Google went around asking random people what a "browser" was.
Most people did not know.

And you're saying that if somebody doesn't know what the beta development stage of software is, they deserve to have data erased and their life ruined?

Rydian, I think the only thing we are ever going to agree with is that we are never going to agree with anything. I like how you make a conditional relation between if I really feel that way, then I need to get up off the computer and in italics, go hang out with some non-virtual people. To be honest, if someone completely ignores the fact that something is a beta, and they completely ignore the warnings on what may come due to the fact that this is a testing release, why should they deserve less?

Obviously I think harshly on people who don't bother to read, I guess I need to go hang out with some non-virtual people. Considering I have a part time job and I am a full time student going for their masters, I guess I still have to hang out with some non-virtual people alright... If you really want to start throwing personal attacks over a forum to discuss supercards, it's your grave.

My opinion (not a fact) still stands that it can be better (whether someone is being paid or not paid to make something) that early releases are better then late releases for two main reasons:

1) If you push off a release date so long, you build much unneeded hype. If the software being developed is not up to par, all of this unneeded hype converts into a crap ton pile of rants in this forum.

2) Bugs are found faster when it is released to the general public regardless if it is a beta version or not. The faster something is released, as long as it works, the faster an entire project can be done overall with the assumption there are people prepared to work out the found bugs.

 

[Rydian]

That assumes that people are actually warned on what a beta is, and not just told it's the version with the latest features.

Chrome doesn't warn you.
http://www.google.com/landing/chrome/beta/

Audacity doesn't warn you, either.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/
In fact when you click to download it it lists the beta as "best version for Windows 7 and Vista".

GIMP simply lists it as "development snapshot".
http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
Googling for a precompiled download, I get these sites.
http://www.brothersoft.com/the-gimp-61612.html
http://majorgeeks.com/The_Gimp_d4485.html
Brothersoft doesn't give a warning, and majorgeeks just uses the word "beta".


There's many pieces of beta software people can download without being told what a beta actually is.

 

[phoenixclaws]

This thread seems to have lost focus on the fact that it is in the Supercard section of the forum.. lawl.

 

[Devin]

This thread seems to have lost focus on the fact that it is in the Supercard section of the forum.. lawl.

Shhhhhh. I am enjoying this.

Gets PopCorn*

Alright. Lets start again.

 

[9th_Sage]

Shhhhhh. I am enjoying this.

Gets PopCorn*

Alright. Lets start again.

Hah, ok, maybe I was wrong when I thought no one wanted to read it.

 

[Zetta_x]

That assumes that people are actually warned on what a beta is, and not just told it's the version with the latest features.

Chrome doesn't warn you.
http://www.google.com/landing/chrome/beta/

Audacity doesn't warn you, either.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/
In fact when you click to download it it lists the beta as "best version for Windows 7 and Vista".

GIMP simply lists it as "development snapshot".
http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
Googling for a precompiled download, I get these sites.
http://www.brothersoft.com/the-gimp-61612.html
http://majorgeeks.com/The_Gimp_d4485.html
Brothersoft doesn't give a warning, and majorgeeks just uses the word "beta".


There's many pieces of beta software people can download without being told what a beta actually is.

*facepalm*

I honestly don't even to know where to begin, the fact that you pulled up a number of download sites that use the word beta or the fact you are contradicting yourself with the overall purpose of the supercard team releasing early updates otherwise I am defining as betas.

I guess I'll start with the fact you pulled up download links that use the term beta. I don't understand your point why you did that other than people like to use the word beta. Which leads to the main point:

To my understanding, you are arguing against the SuperCard releasing early updates. I have arrived to this point the fact of your continuous posts are against my point of view of releasing super card updates early. If I am mistaken, then we both agree that the Super Card team should release their updates early and that's the end of the discussion relative to this topic.

If I am not mistaking, then you are against the supercard team releasing early updates which I think we both agree as betas. The term early update I am defining as a completed code with maybe some unidentified bugs. A code that is not yet completed is a program that cannot function or unstable in some way. So you have pulled up particularly 5 download links to what has also been coined as a beta. Once again, I have arrived at the conclusion you are against the releases of beta's considering you have continued to this paragraph. So what you are saying, none of those 5 programs you have mentioned should have been released? Since they are beta's, to my understanding, you believe that people shouldn't use them in case of corruption and what not. Which is ultimately defeating the purpose of releasing a program and a nesting contradiction. There is always the probability of a program having bugs, based on that premises are you really arguing things shouldn't be released?

From my last post:

QUOTE1) If you push off a release date so long, you build much unneeded hype. If the software being developed is not up to par, all of this unneeded hype converts into a crap ton pile of rants in this forum.

2) Bugs are found faster when it is released to the general public regardless if it is a beta version or not. The faster something is released, as long as it works, the faster an entire project can be done overall with the assumption there are people prepared to work out the found bugs.

If you cannot come up with a valid argument against one of my two arguments, then they still stand. When I first joined GBAtemp, I thought I would be interacting with people who could understand the most simplest arguments. This whole week, I have been debating with people who can't even understand my simple arguments and continue to post uncorrelated posts against my arguments. Once again, my argument is in the closest above quotes, if you have something to say against it, please come up with valid reasons, at least one counter example that has somewhat of a relation to what I am posting otherwise we will never come to an agreement at some point. I am embarrassed that I am spending my break at my work just to repeat what I had posted above rather then saying anything new. I can't come up with better arguments if you cannot come up with counter examples.

 

[Zetta_x]

There are two cases:

He either agrees with me that releasing beta versions is either good or disagrees with me saying they should spend the extra time to iron out all the bugs. If he agrees with me, then there is nothing to discuss. If he disagrees with me, then:

Here is a post from yesterday:

It has already been argued that releasing an update early means it may have more bugs in it, however, I argue there is more good then bad with releasing an *early* update. In the long run, a stable version of whatever program that is being developed will come faster with early releases.

All my posts that follow clearly give valid premises all drawing to the same claim I have been making for at least 4 posts now. Instead I get a post with talking about beta's of other websites which clearly had some logical inconsistencies when analyzing the overall argument that the Super Card team should be releasing early updates which I pointed out and also posts of people comparing to the manufactures of cars which I also pointed differences.



If he is debating on the word beta, then it's a lost cause. Arguing the definitions of words is as useless as tits on a nun. (no offense, seriously). Not only that, it's not the point of this topic

 

[Zetta_x]

While it's highly subjective, it clearly spells out the point: It would be better to release the updates earlier then spending large amounts of time to iron out the bugs (especially small ones). Would you think otherwise, if yes, please point it out.

And here we are, debating on the context of my posts instead of looking at the main argument whether the SuperCard team should release updates early or iron out the bugs which then reflects the first post how the updates seem very few.

 

[Zetta_x]

I guess I have to introduce some personal information. I am a rebel, I normally think differently then most people. If you have a giant domain of everything that is possible, there is a subset of this giant domain of what people say is right. As an almost graduate mathematician, I have come to understand that what we know as right may not always be the best choice (That is of course if a better choice can be defined or not, if a better choice cannot be defined, then any sides of an argument is futile as neither is defined as best). For example, assuming cheaper is defined as better, if I see a laptop for $200 and the same laptop in the same condition for $400, by our assumption the $200 is cheaper and thus better. However, if you try arguing which color is best, it's all preference and serious restrictive assumptions have to be made to even attempt to argue anything.

For example, take this giant domain as mentioned earlier, we can see some elements in this domain are: either the Supercard team can release their updates early or it is not the case that the supercard team can release their updates earlier (or they can spend time ironing out bugs). Upon viewing this topic, I saw that the socially preferred subset was to claim that it was better to iron out the bugs and use the time to do that. Naturally, I like arguing against what the majority to believe in (and you will be amazed in some of the arguments I can come up with which are clearly valid and sound arguments).

If someone claims that they should use the time to iron out the bugs for their first release, then I need to find a ground where I can combat this. The ground I picked was the overall release of the program with the variable being time. So I claimed that a program with less bugs would come faster if they just released the versions as beta versions and let the consumers find them. Of course this lead to a different argument such that the SuperCard team will receive heat from letting people test their products. However, I eliminated this argument by saying, whether it is a beta or a finished product, there will still be a countable number of bugs and in some way people are still testing their products in bugs regardless when they release it. Then this whole debate continued with beta software which was clearly not in the scope of the main argument but I felt I had to mention my points.

Next, someone took my argument and tried using a counter example to say I was wrong by relating it to a car manufacturer. Naturally I took the counter example and created a counter example to the counter example such that it was nothing like the production of cars and how software doesn't need to be completely overhauled to fix a mistake like cars would need to do in a recall. Not only that, but if something needs to be rebuilt like a car, a beta version of the software would only notify the producers ahead of time rather then later and that introducing a beta has nothing to do with if a software needs to be overhauled. Then once again, I received heat about using the word beta I guess.

Just my nature, I believe that societal beliefs are very biased. We believe in things based on what people tell us rather then abstract facts. I am fortunate I have endured at least a year of abstract mathematical properties in which I can relate most of these arguments too, it's my challenge to try and convert my arguments from a pure mathematical and logic form to something someone else can cope. For example, by implementing that it would be better for the SuperCard team to release early updates vs late updates, I analytically said that their arguments were inferior to my arguments. While that sounds completely selfish which I agree, if it was wrong, it would be possible to find a counter argument which anyone has yet to do. I realize there is a whole world of a difference then being able to find a counter argument and if a counter argument exists, in which I require a proof to complete. Like has already been said, this whole field is rather subjective and a proof may be beyond my knowledge on how to complete.

To me, when people are clearly trying to make arguments without premises, they are screaming at me that the $400 laptop would be better given the assumption that cheaper is better and it annoys the shit out of me considering my field of study.

No wonder mathematicians always go crazy, at a certain point, you disconnect from social beliefs of people. They get so much heat for the way they think and it cannot be determined who is actually right given the difference of thinking processes.


Take care,
Z

 

[Zetta_x]

It would be flawed if you didn't believe everything society thinks. For example, no way would I even attempt to argue that the best transportation to go to school 20 miles away is to not use a motor vehicle. The only arguments I would be able to come up with is that it saves money, good exercise, etc... However, anyone can easily counter those arguments. For example, if I could get to school a couple hours earlier by using a motor vehicle, in those two hours, I could use that time to learn information, I could use that learned information to peruse a degree and make more money then it would cost to use a motor vehicle. However, that argument itself ties a correlation with money and time which is a positive correlation, it isn't a very strong correlation which provides a weak, but nonetheless, a counter example.

I choose this lifestyle because I don't like to be bound by societies small subset of that giant domain. When I meant bias thought, I meant if something was defined to be better then something else logically and mathematically, society sometimes chooses the weaker of the two by some illogical reason. For example, I have grass, most people have grass, why? Mathematically it offers no beneficial value and under the assumption money is better (which can easily be argued that money is not better) we contradict ourselves. I contradict myself by cutting my lawn and re-growing it, and cutting it over and over again (it's a waste of money).

Not only that, but sometimes societies reasons to believing something is for the benefits of others. Does someone who own 100 pairs of shoes need them? Seriously, I helped my friend move out the other day, she had at least 20 pairs of shoes and purses that match them. It's not uncommon for people to do this either for no beneficial gain (with under the assumption that money is better and it still can be contradicted).

While it may seem bias to believe money is better or money is not better, one makes more logically sound then the other which is where the combination of mathematics and logic make a great team. If I don't have money, I can't afford living conditions (society makes us believe it, I believe it). Therefore I want to have money. If I didn't need money to survive (which shouldn't be the case but we are supposed to believe that), I will then make the assumption that money is required to survive. From that premises, we are forced to believe we want money. Which contributes to factors of greed. However, it is very well possible to find counter arguments of this. The first human civilization didn't have money (under the premises that somepoint money was created), they survived hence we are here on GBA temp right now. Therefore we don't need money to survive, we need the ability for survival skills which we lost generations ago.

 

[Rydian]

To my understanding, you are arguing against the SuperCard releasing early updates.You must be confusing me with somebody else.
Every single post of mine in this thread was about how the average person does not know what a "beta" is, and how they think it just means "behind the scenes peek".


My first post stated that plainly, and my second and third posts were against this atrocious thought of yours: QUOTE(Zetta_x @ Jun 20 2010, 08:43 PM) If someone doesn't know what the word beta means, I hope that program not only erases data, I hope it ruins their life.

Try less talking and more actual reading of the posts you're responding to.

 

[Zetta_x]

I started losing myself in my own thought process, anyways, I meant to say the reason why I choose to be like this is because it offers enlightenment, it offers new solutions to things that may have never been thought of.

The transitivity property of our number system states, if A = B and B = C then A = C.

If 2 + 5 = 7 and 7 = 3 + 4, then 2 + 5 = 3 + 4 which of course is true by the transitivity property.

If you were to add 2 + 5, you would think 7. It is a great possibility you may not run into the case where if someone asks you 2 + 5, then you were to think of that is 3 + 4. However, it has already been proven it is the case. It may be easier to add 3 + 4 for an example for some odd reasons (3 + 4 = 3 + (3 + 1) = 2(3) + 1 = 6 + 1 = 7) While the numbers I used are small, I can do operations of insanely huge numbers compared to the average person using the same techniques. With the way we were taught in society, they would never tell you to think of 2 + 5 as 3 + 4, yet it may offer new techniques (and better) to conquer problems. I hope this analogy helps, this analogy can be related to many things.

 

[spinal_cord]

Just for fun I'm going to agree and say that beta releases of what will ultimately be free software is the best solution. It is far easier to have a couple of thousand people test for any bugs that would crop up in normal use that it is for a couple of people to do it.

 

[Zetta_x]

To my understanding, you are arguing against the SuperCard releasing early updates.You must be confusing me with somebody else.
Every single post of mine in this thread was about how the average person does not know what a "beta" is, and how they think it just means "behind the scenes peek".


My first post stated that plainly, and my second and third posts were against this atrocious thought of yours:

If someone doesn't know what the word beta means, I hope that program not only erases data, I hope it ruins their life.

Try less talking and more actual reading of the posts you're responding to.

Oh my bad, I can't believe I took your opinion as an argument against what I was posting especially since everything above what you quoted was actually on the topic it would be better if the super... blah blah blah I said it enough times. We can have a whole debate over people's opinions and get no where especially since I believe if someone signs their life away without reading the agreements, they deserve to have signed their life away. (just my opinion)


QUOTE

@Zetta_x

I don't entirely agree. It is probably true that looking at things from a different angle is necessary for paradigm shifts in thinking, but to simply oppose generally accepted ideals is far from enlightenment. It is quite the opposite as you would be trashing years of thinking. I'd love to have this sort of discussion somewhere other than a Supercard thread, but for now, I'll stop here.

Same, we both probably have much better things to do then that type of discussion anyways lol

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

Zetta_x, I'm not trying to be rude here, but you just fail to understand the problem here. You don't read what the others said thoroughly. If I look at the amount of text you type, the amount of text they type and the time intervals in posts, I can only conclude that you have just diagonally read their posts and then immediately posted an argument instead of actually thinking about what they said.

You being a mathematician has absolutely nothing to do with this. I am a mathematician too, yet I fully understand their arguments and support them. I can agree with some of your points to a certain extent but you just seem so ignorant, it's not because the people talking in this topic (I suppose you all have quite a high IQ) fully understand what all those terms like 'beta', etc. mean, that the average temper (or person on the Earth) knows that, too.

 

[ReverseViceVersa]

Zetta_x, I'm not trying to be rude here, but you just fail to understand the problem here. You don't read what the others said thoroughly. If I look at the amount of text you type, the amount of text they type and the time intervals in posts, I can only conclude that you have just diagonally read their postsz and then immediately posted an argument instead of actually thinking about what they said.

You being a mathematician has absolutely nothing to do with this. I am a mathematician too, yet I fully understand their arguments and support them. I can agree with some of your points to a certain extent but you just seem so ignorant, it's not because the people talking in this topic (I suppose you all have quite a high IQ) fully understand what all those terms like 'beta', etc. mean, that the average temper (or person on the Earth) knows that, too.

You are rude AND arrogant. Your fucking IQ doesn't mean shit, and is not greater than mine nor anyone else's. Quit PMing me about IQ's and how cool you are compared to me Mr. Overlord, because if you were actually smart, and claim to have a "149 IQ," you wouldn't be wasting every fucking minute of your worthless life here on GBATemp's Supercard forum putting down every poster that doesn't post in your stupid ass thread. Thanks, bye. Don't PM me trying to sound smart you litle adolescent from Belgium.

 

[Zetta_x]

Zetta_x, I'm not trying to be rude here, but you just fail to understand the problem here. You don't read what the others said thoroughly. If I look at the amount of text you type, the amount of text they type and the time intervals in posts, I can only conclude that you have just diagonally read their postsz and then immediately posted an argument instead of actually thinking about what they said.

You being a mathematician has absolutely nothing to do with this. I am a mathematician too, yet I fully understand their arguments and support them. I can agree with some of your points to a certain extent but you just seem so ignorant, it's not because the people talking in this topic (I suppose you all have quite a high IQ) fully understand what all those terms like 'beta', etc. mean, that the average temper (or person on the Earth) knows that, too.


Overlord, I honestly have no idea what and why you just said it.

People get the common misconception that mathematics is just numbers. I can factor out this polynomial of degree..., I could do double integration to find the volume of..., I know how to solve a system of partial ordinary differential equations of order... none of that is mathematics. Have you ever proved the fundamental theorem of algebra or calculus? Do you know why everything in mathematics works they way they do? Everything in mathematics is proved. Mathematics isn't about that stupid crap you learn in high school or even at a community college level. Mathematics as a pure mathematician on upper division level is the true face behind mathematics. Theories of abstract and general facts, reasons why things work out the way they do. I have studied so indepth of these theories, the way I think is mathematician like and use these theories.


Taken from Wikipedia:

QUOTE"The complete ordered field"

The real numbers are often described as "the complete ordered field", a phrase that can be interpreted in several ways.

First, an order can be lattice-complete. It is easy to see that no ordered field can be lattice-complete, because it can have no largest element (given any element z, z + 1 is larger), so this is not the sense that is meant.

Additionally, an order can be Dedekind-complete, as defined in the section Axioms. The uniqueness result at the end of that section justifies using the word "the" in the phrase "complete ordered field" when this is the sense of "complete" that is meant. This sense of completeness is most closely related to the construction of the reals from Dedekind cuts, since that construction starts from an ordered field (the rationals) and then forms the Dedekind-completion of it in a standard way.

These two notions of completeness ignore the field structure. However, an ordered group (in this case, the additive group of the field) defines a uniform structure, and uniform structures have a notion of completeness (topology); the description in the section Completeness above is a special case. (We refer to the notion of completeness in uniform spaces rather than the related and better known notion for metric spaces, since the definition of metric space relies on already having a characterisation of the real numbers.) It is not true that R is the only uniformly complete ordered field, but it is the only uniformly complete Archimedean field, and indeed one often hears the phrase "complete Archimedean field" instead of "complete ordered field". Since it can be proved that any uniformly complete Archimedean field must also be Dedekind-complete (and vice versa, of course), this justifies using "the" in the phrase "the complete Archimedean field". This sense of completeness is most closely related to the construction of the reals from Cauchy sequences (the construction carried out in full in this article), since it starts with an Archimedean field (the rationals) and forms the uniform completion of it in a standard way.

But the original use of the phrase "complete Archimedean field" was by David Hilbert, who meant still something else by it. He meant that the real numbers form the largest Archimedean field in the sense that every other Archimedean field is a subfield of R. Thus R is "complete" in the sense that nothing further can be added to it without making it no longer an Archimedean field. This sense of completeness is most closely related to the construction of the reals from surreal numbers, since that construction starts with a proper class that contains every ordered field (the surreals) and then selects from it the largest Archimedean subfield.
[edit] Advanced properties

The reals are uncountable; that is, there are strictly more real numbers than natural numbers, even though both sets are infinite. In fact, the cardinality of the reals equals that of the set of subsets (i.e., the power set) of the natural numbers, and Cantor's diagonal argument states that the latter set's cardinality is strictly bigger than the cardinality of N. Since only a countable set of real numbers can be algebraic, almost all real numbers are transcendental. The non-existence of a subset of the reals with cardinality strictly between that of the integers and the reals is known as the continuum hypothesis. The continuum hypothesis can neither be proved nor be disproved; it is independent from the axioms of set theory.

The real numbers form a metric space: the distance between x and y is defined to be the absolute value |x ? y|. By virtue of being a totally ordered set, they also carry an order topology; the topology arising from the metric and the one arising from the order are identical, but yield different presentations for the topology - in the order topology as intervals, in the metric topology as epsilon-balls. The Dedekind cuts construction uses the order topology presentation, while the Cauchy sequences construction uses the metric topology presentation. The reals are a contractible (hence connected and simply connected), separable metric space of dimension 1, and are everywhere dense. The real numbers are locally compact but not compact. There are various properties that uniquely specify them; for instance, all unbounded, connected, and separable order topologies are necessarily homeomorphic to the reals.

Every nonnegative real number has a square root in R, and no negative number does. This shows that the order on R is determined by its algebraic structure. Also, every polynomial of odd degree admits at least one real root: these two properties make R the premier example of a real closed field. Proving this is the first half of one proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra.

I strongly doubt you have encountered anything of the above. You will find that in this reality, a subset of some universal domain, that there exists a zero element such that a + (-a) = 0 (the zero element is not necessarily 0), there exists inverses, operations are commutative (in abelian groups), operations are associative. You will see that there are many applications today that have isomorphic mappings to how we function today and all the properties you see above hold.

The way I think about arguments, I relate them to these properties of mathematics (stuff like the transitivity property, that kind of simple stuff) and my arguments follow logically sound.

The only premises you have ever shown is that the amount of time between my text and their text... which doesn't say anything because there exists at least one counter example that contradicts that argument it wouldn't be hard to think of one either. Which is the reason why I have doubts you have even studied "Mathematics" because you are not following the most basic elementary rules of logic that is a requirement to study "Mathematics."

While the majority of the time I am not a serious guy (regardless of what you may think), I find it very insulting when people (especially handfuls) disagree with things I say without providing some type of valid argument. I can't even attempt to come back at them without posting a bunch of what may be complete nonsense to them (if they can't understand simple arguments, trying to support what I said will ultimately make them more confused and continue to disagree). If you are disagreeing with me without providing a valid argument, it is very easily to denote the inverse law (and can be related to the symmetric properties of equivalence relations) to say that I disagree with you. Of course that makes sense, if you disagree with me, then I disagree with you. The intersection of disagreement may be a knowledge barrier: obviously someone who has had years of study cannot be fully understood by someone who is on their first year of studying. However, who has the higher probability of actually being defined as correct (where correct is socially defined)

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

I couldn't be arsed to read everything of that Wikipedia article, mainly because it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, but quickly browsing through it made me jump to the conclusion I already know most of that. And I am still in high school (I study Latin-Maths btw, but that doesn't really matter now). So, I would say your theory is flawed, because it IS the 'stupid crap' I see in high school.

That said, I agree with you (to a certain extent) that people who do not know what words like 'beta' mean, shouldn't even deserve anything better than to end up with their equipment broken, but you should be reasonable (and this is where I think your 'logic' doesn't add up): people don't always know about everything, and they don't necessarily have to learn it the hard way.

Anyways, I suggest we all drop the argument here like PharaohsVizier already did, because this is going WAY off-topic. What started out as a rant on how the Supercard team are 'slow' got into a discussion about mathematics, and this is indeed not the best place to talk about it.