Because if you spend the time to research it, it presents itself as a very valid concern. It takes a while before everyone realizes.
I've thought about this for a while and I think it is true"If a rational enough, intelligent enough, person sits down and thinks long and hard enough about this problem, then they will inevitably come to the same conclusion as me. Therefore, it is true. If they don't come to the same conclusion, it means they are not sufficiently rational, intelligent, knowledgeable, or hard-thinking".
But do avoid falling into fallacy fallacy. Just because the point is badly argued doesn't mean it is, in fact, false.Because if you spend the time to research it, it presents itself as a very valid concern. It takes a while before everyone realizes.
This I like to call "The Philosophers Argument", because it is recurring again and again throughout the history of philosophy. From Descartes to Kant to Hegel to Rawls, and several others. They all present arguments that, in one way or another, boils down to this:
"If a rational enough, intelligent enough, person sits down and thinks long and hard enough about this problem, then they will inevitably come to the same conclusion as me. Therefore, it is true. If they don't come to the same conclusion, it means they are not sufficiently rational, intelligent, knowledgeable, or hard-thinking".
good grief, far to sensible ...WOW, I didn't even know there was a keyboard layout "issue" going on. That just goes to show how well I've insulated myself to any nonsense I suppose. After the mad roller coaster ride that was the "Pandora" for many years, and then the even worse derailment that was the ICP2, I just gave up on reading these forums on a regular basis. There is just way to many negatives and arguments for me to bother with.
I check in a few times a week, and see if ED has made a new topic, and then read his OP and move on. I'm very much looking forward to the Pyra, and ED has shown me he is more than up to the task of producing this system and making this with minimal issues long term. No decisions and choices are going to be without argument, and everyone is entitled to their opinions, but some guys take it to extremes.
Thanks to ED and the team for all the work so far, and I'm very much looking to buying a Pyra sometime later this year, it's looking great.
Chris
That is, indeed, true. Did you think about that long and hard?But do avoid falling into fallacy fallacy. Just because the point is badly argued doesn't mean it is, in fact, false.Because if you spend the time to research it, it presents itself as a very valid concern. It takes a while before everyone realizes.
This I like to call "The Philosophers Argument", because it is recurring again and again throughout the history of philosophy. From Descartes to Kant to Hegel to Rawls, and several others. They all present arguments that, in one way or another, boils down to this:
"If a rational enough, intelligent enough, person sits down and thinks long and hard enough about this problem, then they will inevitably come to the same conclusion as me. Therefore, it is true. If they don't come to the same conclusion, it means they are not sufficiently rational, intelligent, knowledgeable, or hard-thinking".
Nope, fallacy fallacy is my favorite fallacyThat is, indeed, true. Did you think about that long and hard?
ED, this statement has me confused.At least make it to lock at 145° as Fusion_Power said.
As mentioned above, already done (but not at 145°, as that would not match with a proper holding / viewing angle.
I meant that with our own design we can have our own multi lock hinge without worry about Nintendo. It's perfectly legal. The hinge part in my sketch is only an example and It has nothing to do with any existing hinge parts, be it Nintendo or not.yeah well you won't say FCK Nintendo when ED has to recall a bunch of Pyra's and his shop goes under, due to extensive legal costs......
I must say, this looks like it could be from the producers of "This sentence is a lie."This I like to call "The Philosophers Argument", because it is recurring again and again throughout the history of philosophy. From Descartes to Kant to Hegel to Rawls, and several others. They all present arguments that, in one way or another, boils down to this:
"If a rational enough, intelligent enough, person sits down and thinks long and hard enough about this problem, then they will inevitably come to the same conclusion as me. Therefore, it is true. If they don't come to the same conclusion, it means they are not sufficiently rational, intelligent, knowledgeable, or hard-thinking".