I think TFS laid it on a bit thick, but it does have a point...if a company doesn't feel that another product similar to their own is a threat, they completely ignore it. Making a video with people talking about why they switched from the competitor's product is hardly the same as ignoring it.
There was a time when your name was synonymous with inexpensive but decent computers. However, the last truly decent computers you released were the Dell Mini 9/10v...you're just not the Dell I used to know. Your monitors still kick quite a lot of ass, but your computers are more or less worthless at this point.
We're all fully aware of how pornography causes hipsters heads to explode.
Speaking of hipsters...
Question: How many hipsters it takes to screw in a light bulb? Answer: An obscure number you've probably never heard of...don't bother looking for it, you won't find it.
I'm not talking about from a party standpoint, I mean just as an American Citizen standpoint.
From a party standpoint, I recognize that no one really wants things to change. As a person though, I honestly believe that he thought he could really make a difference. Note that this has nothing to do with what he's done since he got elected, nor does it have anything to do with my opinion of him now. I'm strictly referring to what I think made him want to be President in the first place.
Very true! While more and more web-based news orgs are using their own reporters, researchers, and press folks (this seems to be especially true on gaming blogs), they still don't come even close to the effort, expense, and expertise shown by the larger news agencies.
For me, it's not that big news sources aren't worth the money...I just don't see a reason to pay them for the same information I can get for free (legally!)
When I say bias, I mean they don't approach things from a "Democrat" or "Republican" point of view, like say MSNBC or Fox. They simply present them as facts, and leave the interpretation up to the listener.
Yes, there is judgement used when deciding what to cover, but my point is that what they do cover is presented in an impartial fashion.
In the case of Obama, I think he truly believed that he would be able to change things once he was in a position of "real" power. Except when he got elected, he found out that the president isn't a position of "real" power after all...you're hands are tied when it comes to MANY things.
I don't think his promises have been broken, so much as had reality injected in them.
No, there are some that really do their honest best to keep things non-biased. Our local news radio station, WTOP, tends to present things very factually, leaving all opinion out of their "news" reports, keeping it confined to clearly-labeled "opinion" pieces (which are posted from a variety of people.)
It's rare, but there are news services out there that really do just report the facts, not their version of the facts.
There are already so many different places to get news from with such a variety of bias from all sides (and, on rare occasion, from no side), I see no reason to actually pay for news online. Sure, some of the bigger sites will get attention, but with smaller companies taking over the news on the Internet (Huffington Post, Drudge Report, etc), I have a feeling that pay-for news will eventually become quite scarce.
Evolution, namely. You live in an area filled with trees? Well, logically you would need spindly arms and ways to grip branches, right? I present you with the modern day sloth. Hummingbirds, ants...the list goes on there.
The circle of water as well as the circular food chain indicate logic as well.
Anyway, hopefully you have not mistaken me for someone with religion, I'm mostly trying to point out that you are looking for sensible behavior from people that you have already identified as not being entirely sensible, getting into digressions over what *they* *should* think about their god is sort of beside the point.
No worries:-) Actually, I do this for a very specific reason: the truly religious (again, like the previous example I used of my wife's grandfather), will reach a point where they just toss up their hands and say "that's where faith comes in."
The ones that just get pissed off and walk away, or keep on trying to give you explanations? Those are the fakers.
Ignoring the additional action then, I'd argue that knowledge alone of our actions before we do them would constitute an implication or illusion of free will, not actual free will.
Complete knowledge of our actions would mean nothing we do could change the outcome, because every adjustment we eventually make would have already been known of. This directly contradicts the definition of free will.
This brings the conversation to the illusion of free will vs actual free will, for whatever that's worth.
Seriously though... his argument was that knowing events beforehand negates free will.
Which I further explained, and you have yet to respond to. I'll repost it here, in case you missed it.
I guess I didn't fill it out enough, sorry about that.
Again, assuming what religious christians say is true, god works through us. This would also mean he works through those soccer players. You only know what they did after they did it; god knew what they would do before they did not because he can "see or be" the future, but because he worked through them. This, effectively, makes all of us nothing but puppets on strings.
A puppeteer knows how they are going to make a puppet move before they do it. I'd argue that god does the same thing (based on christians' own words), thus negating the possibility of free will.
I would argue that, given the theory behind "intelligent design" and the way life has been constructed and perpetuated in this world, logic would rank pretty high on the list of priorities.
I guess I didn't fill it out enough, sorry about that.
Again, assuming what religious christians say is true, god works through us. This would also mean he works through those soccer players. You only know what they did after they did it; god knew what they would do before they did not because he can "see or be" the future, but because he worked through them. This, effectively, makes all of us nothing but puppets on strings.
A puppeteer knows how they are going to make a puppet move before they do it. I'd argue that god does the same thing (based on christians' own words), thus negating the possibility of free will.
It spills over into what people would do with a bible, though...if all creatures on this planet are god's children, why would we A. be the only ones given his word and B. the only ones given the ability to comprehend it? Standard "why is the universe so big if we're alone" and "if the universe isn't empty except for us, why don't we know of god's other children" type of questions apply as well.
The fact that there are different versions of the bible (again, external of "lost in translation" issues) understandable only by man should be proof enough for anyone that it is the word of man, not the word of god.
According to some people (namely the people that follow "the book"), god works through us. Assuming this to be true, I ask you: do puppets on strings have free will?
I mean to insist that an entity whose power is truly limitless (something that our brains can't fully comprehend) wouldn't give a fuck what we do.
"God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray God, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image."
In this instance, I don't think any outcome would be a good one. Regardless of the punishment or settlement put upon/awarded the accused/accuser, it wouldn't change the fact that this happened.
Slashdot Mirror
I think TFS laid it on a bit thick, but it does have a point...if a company doesn't feel that another product similar to their own is a threat, they completely ignore it. Making a video with people talking about why they switched from the competitor's product is hardly the same as ignoring it.
There was a time when your name was synonymous with inexpensive but decent computers. However, the last truly decent computers you released were the Dell Mini 9/10v...you're just not the Dell I used to know. Your monitors still kick quite a lot of ass, but your computers are more or less worthless at this point.
"Dude, you're getting a Dell." "Crap."
Indeed. She has a very...personal touch.
HEY-OOOOOHHHHHH!!!!
"So what happend with you and Suzy last night?"
"What else? We did the finances."
Just wait until games reach fully interactive levels, a la holodecks.
We're all fully aware of how pornography causes hipsters heads to explode.
Speaking of hipsters...
Question: How many hipsters it takes to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: An obscure number you've probably never heard of...don't bother looking for it, you won't find it.
I'm not talking about from a party standpoint, I mean just as an American Citizen standpoint.
From a party standpoint, I recognize that no one really wants things to change. As a person though, I honestly believe that he thought he could really make a difference. Note that this has nothing to do with what he's done since he got elected, nor does it have anything to do with my opinion of him now. I'm strictly referring to what I think made him want to be President in the first place.
Very true! While more and more web-based news orgs are using their own reporters, researchers, and press folks (this seems to be especially true on gaming blogs), they still don't come even close to the effort, expense, and expertise shown by the larger news agencies.
For me, it's not that big news sources aren't worth the money...I just don't see a reason to pay them for the same information I can get for free (legally!)
When I say bias, I mean they don't approach things from a "Democrat" or "Republican" point of view, like say MSNBC or Fox. They simply present them as facts, and leave the interpretation up to the listener.
Yes, there is judgement used when deciding what to cover, but my point is that what they do cover is presented in an impartial fashion.
In the case of Obama, I think he truly believed that he would be able to change things once he was in a position of "real" power. Except when he got elected, he found out that the president isn't a position of "real" power after all...you're hands are tied when it comes to MANY things.
I don't think his promises have been broken, so much as had reality injected in them.
No, there are some that really do their honest best to keep things non-biased. Our local news radio station, WTOP, tends to present things very factually, leaving all opinion out of their "news" reports, keeping it confined to clearly-labeled "opinion" pieces (which are posted from a variety of people.)
It's rare, but there are news services out there that really do just report the facts, not their version of the facts.
There are already so many different places to get news from with such a variety of bias from all sides (and, on rare occasion, from no side), I see no reason to actually pay for news online. Sure, some of the bigger sites will get attention, but with smaller companies taking over the news on the Internet (Huffington Post, Drudge Report, etc), I have a feeling that pay-for news will eventually become quite scarce.
Turning Pharaoh's heart to stone, so as to inflict ten total plagues on the Egyptians.
You were saying? Something about free from hidden intervention by god? :-)
I could always set up a hypothetical situation where an entity knows your actions beforehand.
Christianity is one such hypothetical.
By that definition is free will even possible?
:)
Logic over which set of axioms?
Evolution, namely. You live in an area filled with trees? Well, logically you would need spindly arms and ways to grip branches, right? I present you with the modern day sloth. Hummingbirds, ants...the list goes on there.
The circle of water as well as the circular food chain indicate logic as well.
Anyway, hopefully you have not mistaken me for someone with religion, I'm mostly trying to point out that you are looking for sensible behavior from people that you have already identified as not being entirely sensible, getting into digressions over what *they* *should* think about their god is sort of beside the point.
No worries :-) Actually, I do this for a very specific reason: the truly religious (again, like the previous example I used of my wife's grandfather), will reach a point where they just toss up their hands and say "that's where faith comes in."
The ones that just get pissed off and walk away, or keep on trying to give you explanations? Those are the fakers.
Ignoring the additional action then, I'd argue that knowledge alone of our actions before we do them would constitute an implication or illusion of free will, not actual free will.
Complete knowledge of our actions would mean nothing we do could change the outcome, because every adjustment we eventually make would have already been known of. This directly contradicts the definition of free will.
This brings the conversation to the illusion of free will vs actual free will, for whatever that's worth.
Seriously though... his argument was that knowing events beforehand negates free will.
Which I further explained, and you have yet to respond to. I'll repost it here, in case you missed it.
I guess I didn't fill it out enough, sorry about that.
Again, assuming what religious christians say is true, god works through us. This would also mean he works through those soccer players. You only know what they did after they did it; god knew what they would do before they did not because he can "see or be" the future, but because he worked through them. This, effectively, makes all of us nothing but puppets on strings.
A puppeteer knows how they are going to make a puppet move before they do it. I'd argue that god does the same thing (based on christians' own words), thus negating the possibility of free will.
I would argue that, given the theory behind "intelligent design" and the way life has been constructed and perpetuated in this world, logic would rank pretty high on the list of priorities.
That's the point where, as my wife's grandfather would say, "faith comes in to the picture."
I guess I didn't fill it out enough, sorry about that.
Again, assuming what religious christians say is true, god works through us. This would also mean he works through those soccer players. You only know what they did after they did it; god knew what they would do before they did not because he can "see or be" the future, but because he worked through them. This, effectively, makes all of us nothing but puppets on strings.
A puppeteer knows how they are going to make a puppet move before they do it. I'd argue that god does the same thing (based on christians' own words), thus negating the possibility of free will.
It spills over into what people would do with a bible, though...if all creatures on this planet are god's children, why would we A. be the only ones given his word and B. the only ones given the ability to comprehend it? Standard "why is the universe so big if we're alone" and "if the universe isn't empty except for us, why don't we know of god's other children" type of questions apply as well.
The fact that there are different versions of the bible (again, external of "lost in translation" issues) understandable only by man should be proof enough for anyone that it is the word of man, not the word of god.
According to some people (namely the people that follow "the book"), god works through us. Assuming this to be true, I ask you: do puppets on strings have free will?
I mean to insist that an entity whose power is truly limitless (something that our brains can't fully comprehend) wouldn't give a fuck what we do.
"God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray God, ALMIGHTY? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image."
In this instance, I don't think any outcome would be a good one. Regardless of the punishment or settlement put upon/awarded the accused/accuser, it wouldn't change the fact that this happened.
Sometimes, winners still lose.