From: Todd Benson <caduceass@...>
Date: 2007-07-10T21:38:28+09:00
Subject: Re: god 0.1.0 released

On 7/10/07, benjohn@fysh.org <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:
> > I'm basically agnostic, but I still find "god" a poor name. It just
> > has too much semantic weight. An ancient name for god may carry
> > better, like "Deus".
>
> I was imagining there would be objections when I saw the announcement.
> Then I thought, look at the number of God Games out there (Populus, and
> Black & White being prime examples of the genre): playing at God is
> hardly uncharted in technology circles.
>
> I think it's a great name for the application, given it's domain. It
> also gives almost endless scope for grin / cringe jokes. All those jokes
> will, with a little care, also make for a fun and memerable interface:
> there's enormous scope for use of metaphores that I'd imagine most
> societies would probably appreciate (anywhere with some exposure to
> monotheistic religion).

I agree with Trans.  It has too much syntactic weight, not to mention
it is also somewhat pretentious.  It sort of suggests that it is and
will be the end all/be all of monitoring applications.  In fact, in
almost goes one step beyond that, suggesting almost that it is the end
all/be all of any application.  Pretty weighty indeed.  It really has
nothing to do with theological beliefs.  After all, "God" or "the
Lord" in the old testament -- if I remember correctly and sticking to
Judaism as an example -- is translated as "I am"; something _not_
unique to monotheism.  Better to stick with synonyms of god instead.
You can have just as much fun with the mythological captains of the
past.

Todd Burch, I share your discretion, but that's about it.  I really
think the concept of god is ultimately humanistic in nature and has
very little to do with religion.

But I don't foresee the name changing.  So, if I happen to design
something along similar lines that I think is better, I guess I'll
just call it God2, or, hmm ... maybe Lucifer.

Todd