And that is the problem with things of this nature (this also applies to something which can prove, to a person, the existence of God). I think that if one experiences something which is very far outside the realm of what we know to be possible, that a supernatural explanation may be sensible. However, if such an event occurs, it will not be believed by anyone else precisely because it is so far outside the realm of what we know to be possible. So you may have something which proves the existence of ghosts for you, but as it is not a repeatable phenomenon, it cannot prove it for anyone else (you probably know that already, of course).
I wouldn't even agree that TOR is a grind fest. The quests are (for the most part) fun and engaging, so that you don't feel like "Oh, I have to go kill 10 bears", but you want to advance the story... just like an RPG should be.
To be honest, I have not been able to really get into old Doctor Who at all. I've tried watching City of Death (I think that was it) multiple times, as I heard it was one of the better Fourth Doctor adventures, but when I watch it, the acting is too poor to really be able to enjoy it. I really want to experience the history of the series, as I love the revival to death. I guess it's just not for me.:/
There is some halo effect, but basically this boils down to the fact that Apple is doing more things right than Microsoft is. Apple is getting it done. Microsoft is not.
No, this shows that people think that Apple is getting it done, and think that Microsoft is not. This does not have any bearing on whether Apple is actually getting things done, or whether Microsoft is.
2) Complete game mechanics overhaul. While retaining the third person shooter aspect, the game drops clunky and tedious inventory management also streamlines skill leveling.
You mean "eliminates any importance of skill leveling". The game mechanics in ME2 suck (there's no RPG left), although the story is still good.
Your military has nothing to do with unhappiness in Civ V (notwithstanding that social policy that gives you +1 happiness for every city with a garrison). I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. It is true that if you overextend your military you can drive your economy into the ground for a while, but that is only reasonable (and you can recover from it). You shouldn't be able to build a massive, world-crushing force without a stable and sizable economy to support it.
I've done plenty of warmongering in my games of Civ V without killing my empire, so I would venture to guess you're doing something wrong.
I also completely disagree with your assessment of Civ V in general. While there are changes I'm not fond of (such as lack of culture flipping cities, or removal of religion and corporations), on the whole it is indeed a marked improvement over the previous entries in the series.
I do, although I haven't tried as I have had no real desire to provoke someone's ire if I get caught (simply put, looking at whatever I want to on the web isn't worth any risk to my job, however small). Fortunately, the restrictions got relaxed recently now that we have a better proxy that allows people to be given different levels of open access.
We also set up and test equipment for people that work at home, so we have a separate connection from the outside for that. Good times!;)
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.
See, that's the thing. I'm not a developer. When I make that statement, I mean it from the user point of view. I have had my Android phone for a year, and I have not once had an issue where I was unsure of how the UI functioned. I consider it very intuitive and easy to use. Maybe other devices are fucking it up horribly, but based on my experience with the Droid (which runs pretty much just stock Android, iirc), the UI is every bit as good as what Apple offers.
I disagree that your last statement is true from the user's point of view. Having used both iOS and Android, I can honestly say I see no differences that would cause me to favor iOS over Android. There are, however, things that Android has that iOS doesn't (such as the notification tray). Not to mention, of course, the ability to use whatever apps I choose, which iOS will never have. iOS is a decent enough option, but imo it isn't bringing anything to the table that Android doesn't.
That may well hold true for WP7, but I haven't used it so I can't comment on that.
Nothing is ever perfectly safe. That is not ever a reason to not do things. What needs to be evaluated is the amount of risk that exists, and whether it is at a small enough level that we are comfortable taking that risk.
Unfortunately, you highlight something that is a problem in general, not just with nuclear power. People have forgotten that nothing is 100% safe, not even sitting at home all day refusing to go outside. Life is one big exercise in trying to minimize risk, while knowing we cannot eliminate it. We may as well accept that and work toward that end.
Apparently you don't have reading comprehension, because I never said anything about which order things had to be done in... merely that both should be available, and the CLI shouldn't be gimped because the designers are lazy.
You still don't get it, do you? I haven't backpedaled at all, my position is the same as it always was: you, and they, are engaging in different kinds of speech which should be treated differently. It is that simple. You apparently don't agree with this, and I don't really have a problem with that... but the fact that you don't agree doesn't mean it hasn't been part of my premise the entire time.
At no point in this discussion have I contradicted myself. You may have perceived it that way, because you reject part of my premise, but that's not my fault. I thought that if I clarified, and spelled it out for you exactly, you would understand and we would at least be able to reach a point of understanding, if not agreement. I guess not.
I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the connotations the word has, but I will concede that definitions are what we make of them. It is my experience that when someone says something is "pathological", they mean that it should be fixed, even if it cannot be (or perhaps if we do not have the right to attempt it). Not all, since apparently that is not how you use the word... but it is my experience that most people use it in the way I interpret it.
However, since we can ultimately define the word however we wish, that doesn't invalidate what you're saying. I do understand where you're coming from.
No. You are applying the same reasoning to two entirely different concepts. My premise is that there is no objective truth for how someone should enjoy themselves. You are applying that reasoning to the area in which I am calling you out, which is different. What I'm calling you out for is how you treat others, not what you choose to find enjoyable.
Different facets of people interacting with each other can, and should, be judged by different standards. Some can (and should) be judged with a position that all is relative; some should be judged from the position that there is an absolute right and wrong. To do otherwise leads to two equally bad extremes: if one is always permissive of others' views, then one will turn a blind eye to all kinds of situations caused by a tyranny of the majority because, well, it's their right to run their affairs how they see fit. If one is always absolutist, then there is no tolerance for anyone who has a differing point of view. Neither is a just perspective.
In that spirit, I am judging people's preferences for enjoyment as something that should be viewed permissively, where there is no right answer. I am also judging the way one chooses to react to those preferences as something where there is a right answer, and expressing my belief that you are on the wrong side of that line. You may disagree with my judgement of how these two situations should be regarded (and, I would say you almost certainly do). Fine, I take no issue with that. However, the mere fact that I don't have one single way to approach all situations doesn't invalidate my position on its face.
I most certainly do apply my premise to someone with whom I disagree. In fact, I have already applied it to the people who are masochists or who enjoy advertisements. I don't understand it, nor will I ever understand (or agree) with it. However, I am content to live and let live, even though we disagree.
I also, to return to something you said earlier, find it highly ironic that you lament that people are not willing to adopt Voltaire's attitude of being willing to defend the right of someone to say things they disagree with. I have done so already, in your case. I could have simply done what so many moderators do here, and used my mod points to try to drag your comment down. I didn't, because I don't believe anyone has the right to try to censor you (despite the fact that I disagree with what you are saying). My attempting to change your mind through discussion does not constitute an unwillingness to defend your right to say what you wish. No one is using force here, even if I am expressing the opinion that your handling of a given situation should not be considered acceptable.
This is laughable. Not only is your position stupid, because I can just as easily challenge you to prove that advertisements do not carry literary and artistic value (hint: you can't prove this about anything, because those are subjective concepts), but you don't even remember what I said originally. I don't personally find any value in advertisements, and I have no desire to watch them. This has nothing to do with me trying to boost my ego by convincing someone else that my activities are OK; it is about me saying that you don't have the right to take a subjective thing you think, and declare that it is true for everyone.
No, I recognize your right to call this behavior strange. What I do not recognize is a right to call it "pathological" (which, to me, carries an implication that something is wrong and needs to be fixed), nor to claim that your position is objective truth, rather than simply your preference.
I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.
No, it's a matter of taste/opinion. Just because you feel very strongly on the matter does not make your position correct. I don't agree with it either, but who are you to dictate what others should and should not enjoy?
Tracfone. Alltel used to have good prepay service back before Verizon bought them (I would know, I was on it)... don't know if Verizon kept that model or not. Virgin Mobile isn't the only option if you want prepay, not by far.
So force companies to implement safety, just like we do with everything else where there is a significant public need to do so. If the NIMBY people can keep nuclear reactors out by raising a fuss, they can get the government to implement safety regulations by raising a fuss.
Well, they weren't (or at least not as Marx envisioned) in some cases. I don't think that a state which ran purely as Marx envisioned would work out, but that does not discount the fact that there has not yet been something which matched his vision.
Slashdot Mirror
"Heavily edited" now means special effects retouched, and a deleted scene or two restored? You're smoking some fine crack there.
And that is the problem with things of this nature (this also applies to something which can prove, to a person, the existence of God). I think that if one experiences something which is very far outside the realm of what we know to be possible, that a supernatural explanation may be sensible. However, if such an event occurs, it will not be believed by anyone else precisely because it is so far outside the realm of what we know to be possible. So you may have something which proves the existence of ghosts for you, but as it is not a repeatable phenomenon, it cannot prove it for anyone else (you probably know that already, of course).
I wouldn't even agree that TOR is a grind fest. The quests are (for the most part) fun and engaging, so that you don't feel like "Oh, I have to go kill 10 bears", but you want to advance the story... just like an RPG should be.
To be honest, I have not been able to really get into old Doctor Who at all. I've tried watching City of Death (I think that was it) multiple times, as I heard it was one of the better Fourth Doctor adventures, but when I watch it, the acting is too poor to really be able to enjoy it. I really want to experience the history of the series, as I love the revival to death. I guess it's just not for me. :/
The ability to play PS2 games was never removed from consoles which had it. Please stop spreading FUD.
There is some halo effect, but basically this boils down to the fact that Apple is doing more things right than Microsoft is. Apple is getting it done. Microsoft is not.
No, this shows that people think that Apple is getting it done, and think that Microsoft is not. This does not have any bearing on whether Apple is actually getting things done, or whether Microsoft is.
2) Complete game mechanics overhaul. While retaining the third person shooter aspect, the game drops clunky and tedious inventory management also streamlines skill leveling.
You mean "eliminates any importance of skill leveling". The game mechanics in ME2 suck (there's no RPG left), although the story is still good.
Your military has nothing to do with unhappiness in Civ V (notwithstanding that social policy that gives you +1 happiness for every city with a garrison). I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. It is true that if you overextend your military you can drive your economy into the ground for a while, but that is only reasonable (and you can recover from it). You shouldn't be able to build a massive, world-crushing force without a stable and sizable economy to support it.
I've done plenty of warmongering in my games of Civ V without killing my empire, so I would venture to guess you're doing something wrong.
I also completely disagree with your assessment of Civ V in general. While there are changes I'm not fond of (such as lack of culture flipping cities, or removal of religion and corporations), on the whole it is indeed a marked improvement over the previous entries in the series.
I do, although I haven't tried as I have had no real desire to provoke someone's ire if I get caught (simply put, looking at whatever I want to on the web isn't worth any risk to my job, however small). Fortunately, the restrictions got relaxed recently now that we have a better proxy that allows people to be given different levels of open access.
We also set up and test equipment for people that work at home, so we have a separate connection from the outside for that. Good times! ;)
Having control over one's computer has nothing to do with having control over the company network.
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.
See, that's the thing. I'm not a developer. When I make that statement, I mean it from the user point of view. I have had my Android phone for a year, and I have not once had an issue where I was unsure of how the UI functioned. I consider it very intuitive and easy to use. Maybe other devices are fucking it up horribly, but based on my experience with the Droid (which runs pretty much just stock Android, iirc), the UI is every bit as good as what Apple offers.
I disagree that your last statement is true from the user's point of view. Having used both iOS and Android, I can honestly say I see no differences that would cause me to favor iOS over Android. There are, however, things that Android has that iOS doesn't (such as the notification tray). Not to mention, of course, the ability to use whatever apps I choose, which iOS will never have. iOS is a decent enough option, but imo it isn't bringing anything to the table that Android doesn't.
That may well hold true for WP7, but I haven't used it so I can't comment on that.
Nothing is ever perfectly safe. That is not ever a reason to not do things. What needs to be evaluated is the amount of risk that exists, and whether it is at a small enough level that we are comfortable taking that risk.
Unfortunately, you highlight something that is a problem in general, not just with nuclear power. People have forgotten that nothing is 100% safe, not even sitting at home all day refusing to go outside. Life is one big exercise in trying to minimize risk, while knowing we cannot eliminate it. We may as well accept that and work toward that end.
Apparently you don't have reading comprehension, because I never said anything about which order things had to be done in... merely that both should be available, and the CLI shouldn't be gimped because the designers are lazy.
You still don't get it, do you? I haven't backpedaled at all, my position is the same as it always was: you, and they, are engaging in different kinds of speech which should be treated differently. It is that simple. You apparently don't agree with this, and I don't really have a problem with that... but the fact that you don't agree doesn't mean it hasn't been part of my premise the entire time.
At no point in this discussion have I contradicted myself. You may have perceived it that way, because you reject part of my premise, but that's not my fault. I thought that if I clarified, and spelled it out for you exactly, you would understand and we would at least be able to reach a point of understanding, if not agreement. I guess not.
I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the connotations the word has, but I will concede that definitions are what we make of them. It is my experience that when someone says something is "pathological", they mean that it should be fixed, even if it cannot be (or perhaps if we do not have the right to attempt it). Not all, since apparently that is not how you use the word... but it is my experience that most people use it in the way I interpret it.
However, since we can ultimately define the word however we wish, that doesn't invalidate what you're saying. I do understand where you're coming from.
No. You are applying the same reasoning to two entirely different concepts. My premise is that there is no objective truth for how someone should enjoy themselves. You are applying that reasoning to the area in which I am calling you out, which is different. What I'm calling you out for is how you treat others, not what you choose to find enjoyable.
Different facets of people interacting with each other can, and should, be judged by different standards. Some can (and should) be judged with a position that all is relative; some should be judged from the position that there is an absolute right and wrong. To do otherwise leads to two equally bad extremes: if one is always permissive of others' views, then one will turn a blind eye to all kinds of situations caused by a tyranny of the majority because, well, it's their right to run their affairs how they see fit. If one is always absolutist, then there is no tolerance for anyone who has a differing point of view. Neither is a just perspective.
In that spirit, I am judging people's preferences for enjoyment as something that should be viewed permissively, where there is no right answer. I am also judging the way one chooses to react to those preferences as something where there is a right answer, and expressing my belief that you are on the wrong side of that line. You may disagree with my judgement of how these two situations should be regarded (and, I would say you almost certainly do). Fine, I take no issue with that. However, the mere fact that I don't have one single way to approach all situations doesn't invalidate my position on its face.
I most certainly do apply my premise to someone with whom I disagree. In fact, I have already applied it to the people who are masochists or who enjoy advertisements. I don't understand it, nor will I ever understand (or agree) with it. However, I am content to live and let live, even though we disagree.
I also, to return to something you said earlier, find it highly ironic that you lament that people are not willing to adopt Voltaire's attitude of being willing to defend the right of someone to say things they disagree with. I have done so already, in your case. I could have simply done what so many moderators do here, and used my mod points to try to drag your comment down. I didn't, because I don't believe anyone has the right to try to censor you (despite the fact that I disagree with what you are saying). My attempting to change your mind through discussion does not constitute an unwillingness to defend your right to say what you wish. No one is using force here, even if I am expressing the opinion that your handling of a given situation should not be considered acceptable.
This is laughable. Not only is your position stupid, because I can just as easily challenge you to prove that advertisements do not carry literary and artistic value (hint: you can't prove this about anything, because those are subjective concepts), but you don't even remember what I said originally. I don't personally find any value in advertisements, and I have no desire to watch them. This has nothing to do with me trying to boost my ego by convincing someone else that my activities are OK; it is about me saying that you don't have the right to take a subjective thing you think, and declare that it is true for everyone.
No, I recognize your right to call this behavior strange. What I do not recognize is a right to call it "pathological" (which, to me, carries an implication that something is wrong and needs to be fixed), nor to claim that your position is objective truth, rather than simply your preference.
I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.
No, it's a matter of taste/opinion. Just because you feel very strongly on the matter does not make your position correct. I don't agree with it either, but who are you to dictate what others should and should not enjoy?
Tracfone. Alltel used to have good prepay service back before Verizon bought them (I would know, I was on it)... don't know if Verizon kept that model or not. Virgin Mobile isn't the only option if you want prepay, not by far.
So force companies to implement safety, just like we do with everything else where there is a significant public need to do so. If the NIMBY people can keep nuclear reactors out by raising a fuss, they can get the government to implement safety regulations by raising a fuss.
Well, they weren't (or at least not as Marx envisioned) in some cases. I don't think that a state which ran purely as Marx envisioned would work out, but that does not discount the fact that there has not yet been something which matched his vision.
That is not a No True Scotsman, and you failed to understand what he said. Read it again.