Hint: it's a good way to break a religious discourse in stride to ask them to precisely define one of those words. Usually they come back with "but everybody knows what that is!". Yeah, as if that explains it.
Hint: it's a good way to break any discourse in stride if you ask people to precisely define a word they've used. Precisely defining words (without reaching for the dictionary) is hard, because you're so familiar with the words that you don't think of the definition any more, you just intuitively know what it means.
In other words, your statement is technically true, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Feel threatened in your religious beliefs much? Don't worry, that phenomenon you see around you whereby people abandon irrational creeds is called progress. It's slow coming, but it's coming.
Holy fuck! Speaking of trolling (flamebaiting, more appropriately, I guess, but I generally feel flamebait is just a specific form of troll)...
Anyway, the GP is exactly right. The knee-jerk atheists need to calm down and STFU for a while. The word "soul" does not necessarily have religious overtones. It can refer to many things, the religious concept of an immortal soul being only one. The meaning relevant here is the usage of "soul" as a synonym for consciousness equivalent to what humans possess. There is no damn reason to get all worked up about this word.
On a side note, it's hilarious how the loud, knee-jerk atheists trumpet the irrationality of people who are religious... yet they themselves are completely irrational about the subject of religion, as demonstrated in this discussion, where many have jumped all over a word merely for having another meaning which is associated with religion.
Heh, the thread as I read it right now is a perfect picture of the moderation system at work. The flamebait (the AC) has been marked insightful, the insightful comment (westlake) has been marked flamebait. Bravo!
Yeah, attempting to find an explanation to a phenomenon, truly moronic.
No, it's moronic to over-analyze, which is what we're doing. Women can hardly be said to suffer a hostile environment in CS these days, yet people keep going on about why they don't go in. At this point, it's plain that it's because they just aren't interested, yet these morons insist that there must be a deeper reason than that. They're looking for something that doesn't exist.
Where's that right in the US constitution? What kind of ethical system are you basing such an affirmation on?
Their natural right to do business as they see fit, so long as they aren't harming others, free from interference.
According to your point, if an industry wanted to recycle old people and make them into food, there should be laws to protect their rights to do so without people trying to escape from their recycling facilities?
Straw man. The record companies aren't actually harming anyone with their business model. They hurt people with a lot of their actions (screwing over artists, suing people into oblivion), which should be disallowed, but their business model is harmless, unlike your example.
The question you have to ask is WHY is file sharing illegal. To protect the recording industry's outdated business model.
Wrong. To protect the recording industry's right, as a business, to attempt whatever business model they wish without people interfering in it (i.e.: taking their stuff for free).
The enxt question is WHY is the population (because it is them through their taxes) asked to PAY for enforcing a law that makes them and their children criminals in order to line the pockets of music executives?
Uh, actually, they're being made criminals because it's the right thing to do. The penalties are severely out of whack at this time, but the illegality itself is sound. People speed all the damn time, and it makes them criminals (minor criminals, but criminals all the same), but that doesn't make the law against speeding a bad idea. Unless you're speaking of this law specifically, in which case we're agreed that it's ridiculous, but you seem to be attacking copyright law as a whole.
OK, if you define Bigfoot in that way, then we can't prove or disprove his existence. The point isn't that you are supposed to believe in Bigfoot because of that, the point is stating his nonexistence as a fact is foolish. It's even more foolish to ridicule people based on this nonexistent fact.
I'm not picking sides, here. The Christians who act as if they can prove their god exists, and lord it over people because of that, are equally foolish. My point is, and always has been: we can't prove anything, so believe what you want and stfu about it. Don't sit there mocking others for their belief or proclaiming yours like it's so superior (not that you were doing this, so I'm not attacking you, just making a general point).
The first episode that's on the DVD set (I tried watching my roommate's copy about 3 years ago). I don't know which one that was. Like I said, I couldn't stand to finish it, so, knowing that, would you say I still should try again?
I also must admit I find your acceptance of Insurrection disturbing.
It wasn't perfect, but I thought it was all right. The plot was rather predictable, but it was a fun ride, and it had Worf, Picard, and Data singing!
Maybe I will give Firefly another shot, that was 3 years ago now... I just remember being so disgusted with how cheesy the first episode was that I turned it off after 15 or 20 minutes.
Well, actually, I'd say as opposed to TNG or DS9, where they generally (not always, but generally) had excellent plots, and not just blowing shit up. I remember TOS fondly for their willingness to try new stuff and see what stuck, not so much for overall quality, because you're right: for every "Taste of Armageddon", we had a "Catspaw", so averaged out, the series isn't actually that great.
Still, even in those rocky early days, they had flashes of the high quality that made later Trek series great. This new trailer looks like it has none of that quality, that it's completely vapid. I'm OK with vapid movies, but I'd like to see more from a Trek movie.
!? Huh? I couldn't even make it through the first episode of Firefly because the "space western" theme was so god damned cheesy it made me gag. I wouldn't exactly hold that up as an example of high-quality sci-fi these days. BSG, yes. I love BSG and am tormented by the wait for more episodes. That's high-quality sci-fi, and if the new Trek can live up to that, I'd be ecstatic.
Apart from that though, yes, Trek hasn't been as good as it ever has been lately, but honestly, I'd still take everything up through and including Voyager (for the series) or Insurrection (for the movies) over a mindless action flick.
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Clearly more people agree with me than you.
I realize we left the realm of rational thought behind a while ago, and are now waging fan warfare (I'm ok with this, it's fun, but one has to recognize it for what it is;)), but I do feel compelled to make a serious point here: just because more people agree with you than me doesn't make you right, and me wrong. Art being a subjective medium, tastes in art can't be wrong or right. Also:
Climbing, naked, into a pool with 6 or 7 live electric eels should do the job.
I will if you will. Clearly one of us (if not both) is completely insane, and needs the help. For the other, it'd be a nice interesting experience.;)
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick. I like those movies as much as anyone else, but the franchise deserves something better than that.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
That's only true if you aren't capable of looking under your bed for bigfoot, or if we have very wishy-washy definitions of what bigfoot is, so you can't know if you have, in fact, found him. A better analogy (yet still flawed to an extent) would be that we can't prove the existence or nonexistence of bigfoot in the entire world, which I would say is true (at this time).
In short, you're arguing "common sense" things that we actually don't know the status of for sure, so it would be equally wrong to label those as a fantasy as if it were some sort of meaningful fact.
2. Because nobody has time for stupid religious propaganda, especially Card's particularly noxious brand.
This is completely irrelevant to the GP's point. The GGP is flaming religious groups, plain and simple. There's no context to prompt it, as discussing Card's intolerance doesn't require bashing every person of faith in existence; and moreover, it's completely uncalled for, because calling someone's religion a fantasy (which may be true, but as many people forget, may not be true either, so there's not even a basis in fact for this claim) is just knowingly pissing them off.
In short, the GGP is stirring up trouble where none exists, which is disgusting. The fact that some rabid atheists feel the need to mod such needless troublemaking up is further disgusting, although admittedly not the GGP's fault.
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Honestly, I think you're reading things into the books that aren't there. I never got the implication that Anton was suffering for any propagandized reason, or that he was gay for that matter. I certainly didn't think that it was odd that a lonely man would be happy when he had a family to keep him company, that's how anyone who had experienced years of loneliness would react.
I can't help but feel that this is someone reading into the book what they want to read into it, which is what I find, 9/10 times, is at fault when people talk about the author being preachy about his/her values. I just didn't see any evidence for the claims you make in Card's books.
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 0
I'm sorry but you need to put down the crack pipe NOW!
Sir, it is you who needs to put down the crack pipe. Xenocide, worse? It's the best in the series, man! What is there not to like about it, seriously? And Ender's Game the best? I laugh at your crack-induced delusions, friend. Ender's Game is yet another run-of-the-mill sci-fi novel, it has nothing special or unique that stands out. It wasn't until we got past the Battle School that the series went from "good, but not special" to "truly outstanding".
And the Shadow books... insulting them is clearly not only from crack, but LSD and crack combined. Those were amazing books, something you'd see if it weren't for your serious drug habit.;)
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. I felt Xenocide was easily the best in the series, and Ender's Game was easily the worst. The Shadow series is also quite good, but I'm not sure if you're counting that as separate or not.
Java is free but Flash is not (gnash and swfdec are getting there, but still not good enough for everyday use).
This is not, and has never been, a reason to bitch. The vast majority of users aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to use "non-free" software, and nor should they.
You must be younger than me (and I'm only 23). We already had this (look up RSAC), and it got taken over by the ESRB ratings. While I agree that such a system is better and more informative, it already failed once, so why wouldn't we expect it to fail again?
Any GOOD writer can take an existing universe and create ORIGINAL stories in it.
Any BAD writer can take an existing universe and "reboot" it.
And? Any bad writer can add original stories to an existing universe as well (examples too numerous to list here), and any good writer can "reboot" an existing universe as well (BSG is an outstanding example). Your claim is trivial, and says nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Hint: it's a good way to break a religious discourse in stride to ask them to precisely define one of those words. Usually they come back with "but everybody knows what that is!". Yeah, as if that explains it.
Hint: it's a good way to break any discourse in stride if you ask people to precisely define a word they've used. Precisely defining words (without reaching for the dictionary) is hard, because you're so familiar with the words that you don't think of the definition any more, you just intuitively know what it means.
In other words, your statement is technically true, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Feel threatened in your religious beliefs much? Don't worry, that phenomenon you see around you whereby people abandon irrational creeds is called progress. It's slow coming, but it's coming.
Holy fuck! Speaking of trolling (flamebaiting, more appropriately, I guess, but I generally feel flamebait is just a specific form of troll)...
Anyway, the GP is exactly right. The knee-jerk atheists need to calm down and STFU for a while. The word "soul" does not necessarily have religious overtones. It can refer to many things, the religious concept of an immortal soul being only one. The meaning relevant here is the usage of "soul" as a synonym for consciousness equivalent to what humans possess. There is no damn reason to get all worked up about this word.
On a side note, it's hilarious how the loud, knee-jerk atheists trumpet the irrationality of people who are religious... yet they themselves are completely irrational about the subject of religion, as demonstrated in this discussion, where many have jumped all over a word merely for having another meaning which is associated with religion.
Heh, the thread as I read it right now is a perfect picture of the moderation system at work. The flamebait (the AC) has been marked insightful, the insightful comment (westlake) has been marked flamebait. Bravo!
Yeah, attempting to find an explanation to a phenomenon, truly moronic.
No, it's moronic to over-analyze, which is what we're doing. Women can hardly be said to suffer a hostile environment in CS these days, yet people keep going on about why they don't go in. At this point, it's plain that it's because they just aren't interested, yet these morons insist that there must be a deeper reason than that. They're looking for something that doesn't exist.
Where's that right in the US constitution? What kind of ethical system are you basing such an affirmation on?
Their natural right to do business as they see fit, so long as they aren't harming others, free from interference.
According to your point, if an industry wanted to recycle old people and make them into food, there should be laws to protect their rights to do so without people trying to escape from their recycling facilities?
Straw man. The record companies aren't actually harming anyone with their business model. They hurt people with a lot of their actions (screwing over artists, suing people into oblivion), which should be disallowed, but their business model is harmless, unlike your example.
Why do so many people have a hard time accepting that?
Because they're morons. In general, people with half a brain understand that people are individuals, and do their own thing.
The question you have to ask is WHY is file sharing illegal. To protect the recording industry's outdated business model.
Wrong. To protect the recording industry's right, as a business, to attempt whatever business model they wish without people interfering in it (i.e.: taking their stuff for free).
The enxt question is WHY is the population (because it is them through their taxes) asked to PAY for enforcing a law that makes them and their children criminals in order to line the pockets of music executives?
Uh, actually, they're being made criminals because it's the right thing to do. The penalties are severely out of whack at this time, but the illegality itself is sound. People speed all the damn time, and it makes them criminals (minor criminals, but criminals all the same), but that doesn't make the law against speeding a bad idea. Unless you're speaking of this law specifically, in which case we're agreed that it's ridiculous, but you seem to be attacking copyright law as a whole.
OK, if you define Bigfoot in that way, then we can't prove or disprove his existence. The point isn't that you are supposed to believe in Bigfoot because of that, the point is stating his nonexistence as a fact is foolish. It's even more foolish to ridicule people based on this nonexistent fact.
I'm not picking sides, here. The Christians who act as if they can prove their god exists, and lord it over people because of that, are equally foolish. My point is, and always has been: we can't prove anything, so believe what you want and stfu about it. Don't sit there mocking others for their belief or proclaiming yours like it's so superior (not that you were doing this, so I'm not attacking you, just making a general point).
The first episode that's on the DVD set (I tried watching my roommate's copy about 3 years ago). I don't know which one that was. Like I said, I couldn't stand to finish it, so, knowing that, would you say I still should try again?
I also must admit I find your acceptance of Insurrection disturbing.
It wasn't perfect, but I thought it was all right. The plot was rather predictable, but it was a fun ride, and it had Worf, Picard, and Data singing!
Maybe I will give Firefly another shot, that was 3 years ago now... I just remember being so disgusted with how cheesy the first episode was that I turned it off after 15 or 20 minutes.
I watched the first episode on my roommate's DVD set, so I'm not sure which one that was. Whichever one it was, it completely turned me off.
Well, actually, I'd say as opposed to TNG or DS9, where they generally (not always, but generally) had excellent plots, and not just blowing shit up. I remember TOS fondly for their willingness to try new stuff and see what stuck, not so much for overall quality, because you're right: for every "Taste of Armageddon", we had a "Catspaw", so averaged out, the series isn't actually that great.
Still, even in those rocky early days, they had flashes of the high quality that made later Trek series great. This new trailer looks like it has none of that quality, that it's completely vapid. I'm OK with vapid movies, but I'd like to see more from a Trek movie.
complete cheese-fest
[as opposed to] Firefly/Serenity
!? Huh? I couldn't even make it through the first episode of Firefly because the "space western" theme was so god damned cheesy it made me gag. I wouldn't exactly hold that up as an example of high-quality sci-fi these days. BSG, yes. I love BSG and am tormented by the wait for more episodes. That's high-quality sci-fi, and if the new Trek can live up to that, I'd be ecstatic.
Apart from that though, yes, Trek hasn't been as good as it ever has been lately, but honestly, I'd still take everything up through and including Voyager (for the series) or Insurrection (for the movies) over a mindless action flick.
Clearly more people agree with me than you.
I realize we left the realm of rational thought behind a while ago, and are now waging fan warfare (I'm ok with this, it's fun, but one has to recognize it for what it is ;)), but I do feel compelled to make a serious point here: just because more people agree with you than me doesn't make you right, and me wrong. Art being a subjective medium, tastes in art can't be wrong or right. Also:
Climbing, naked, into a pool with 6 or 7 live electric eels should do the job.
I will if you will. Clearly one of us (if not both) is completely insane, and needs the help. For the other, it'd be a nice interesting experience. ;)
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick. I like those movies as much as anyone else, but the franchise deserves something better than that.
I also still think Kirk looks like a preppy douche, not a skilled (if overly testosterone-driven) starship captain. Rest of the cast still looks fine.
That's only true if you aren't capable of looking under your bed for bigfoot, or if we have very wishy-washy definitions of what bigfoot is, so you can't know if you have, in fact, found him. A better analogy (yet still flawed to an extent) would be that we can't prove the existence or nonexistence of bigfoot in the entire world, which I would say is true (at this time).
In short, you're arguing "common sense" things that we actually don't know the status of for sure, so it would be equally wrong to label those as a fantasy as if it were some sort of meaningful fact.
2. Because nobody has time for stupid religious propaganda, especially Card's particularly noxious brand.
This is completely irrelevant to the GP's point. The GGP is flaming religious groups, plain and simple. There's no context to prompt it, as discussing Card's intolerance doesn't require bashing every person of faith in existence; and moreover, it's completely uncalled for, because calling someone's religion a fantasy (which may be true, but as many people forget, may not be true either, so there's not even a basis in fact for this claim) is just knowingly pissing them off.
In short, the GGP is stirring up trouble where none exists, which is disgusting. The fact that some rabid atheists feel the need to mod such needless troublemaking up is further disgusting, although admittedly not the GGP's fault.
Honestly, I think you're reading things into the books that aren't there. I never got the implication that Anton was suffering for any propagandized reason, or that he was gay for that matter. I certainly didn't think that it was odd that a lonely man would be happy when he had a family to keep him company, that's how anyone who had experienced years of loneliness would react.
I can't help but feel that this is someone reading into the book what they want to read into it, which is what I find, 9/10 times, is at fault when people talk about the author being preachy about his/her values. I just didn't see any evidence for the claims you make in Card's books.
I'm sorry but you need to put down the crack pipe NOW!
Sir, it is you who needs to put down the crack pipe. Xenocide, worse? It's the best in the series, man! What is there not to like about it, seriously? And Ender's Game the best? I laugh at your crack-induced delusions, friend. Ender's Game is yet another run-of-the-mill sci-fi novel, it has nothing special or unique that stands out. It wasn't until we got past the Battle School that the series went from "good, but not special" to "truly outstanding".
And the Shadow books... insulting them is clearly not only from crack, but LSD and crack combined. Those were amazing books, something you'd see if it weren't for your serious drug habit. ;)
I disagree. I felt Xenocide was easily the best in the series, and Ender's Game was easily the worst. The Shadow series is also quite good, but I'm not sure if you're counting that as separate or not.
We don't need no stinking ethics when we've got self-interest to guide us.
That would apply if open-source vs closed-source software was an ethical/moral issue. It isn't. Your cute comeback doesn't apply here.
Java is free but Flash is not (gnash and swfdec are getting there, but still not good enough for everyday use).
This is not, and has never been, a reason to bitch. The vast majority of users aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to use "non-free" software, and nor should they.
You must be younger than me (and I'm only 23). We already had this (look up RSAC), and it got taken over by the ESRB ratings. While I agree that such a system is better and more informative, it already failed once, so why wouldn't we expect it to fail again?
Slashdot Viewership Disappears Editors From Headlines
Joke's on you! Can't take away what was never there, after all. ;)
Any GOOD writer can take an existing universe and create ORIGINAL stories in it.
Any BAD writer can take an existing universe and "reboot" it.
And? Any bad writer can add original stories to an existing universe as well (examples too numerous to list here), and any good writer can "reboot" an existing universe as well (BSG is an outstanding example). Your claim is trivial, and says nothing.