Yes, like going bankrupt, foreclosing, and going out of business. Now that we're on the other side, we know for sure that people shouldn't worry about that, because the government will bail them out! It's the best of both worlds, if you like taking money from the government.
The same could be said of anything, though. The more time you spend at it, the better you get. I would be a lot better at painting, I just don't take the time to grind the paint. I would be a lot better at trivia, I just don't read wikipedia all day. WoW just happens to model this with an experience and item system; arguably this levels the playing field more effectively than not having it, since it rewards everyone who plays it rather than just those who mash buttons.
Say what you want about it, in the end it comes down to personal taste. Millions of people love WoW, so obviously they're doing something right.
Heaven forbid that just *anyone* could get the most out of the game they pay to play
That's just the point, isn't it? Competitive gameplay usually means that someone wins and they get rewarded for it. In WoW, anyone can "win" regardless of how good they are, which can make the game less appealing for competitive people. How appealing would football or basketball be to play or to watch if, at the end, everyone was declared a winner and they hugged it out?
I'm not saying one or the other is better, just that some people will prefer a game that's more accessible to everyone and some people will prefer a more competitive atmosphere.
PC stands for "Personal Computer", which by definition includes Macs
That's a common myth. In actuality, Macs long ago left the realm of personal computing and evolved into a status symbol and fashion accessory. Most powerbooks sold these days don't even have a processor in them, just an etch-a-sketch, since they just look good with patched jeans, a 5 o'clock shadow and carefully mussed-up hair while letting the owner feel artistic.
Because it gives you a thorough grounding in theoretical math, the type of stuff that I do with computers every day. I program in PHP, which you might think would be even more removed from math than.NET and Java (because it is). But there's no doubt that the analysis of algorithms and the ability to do extended, involved proofs well beyond what you learn in geometry has helped me in my programming job. Hell, even knowledge of Databases is helped by some good, college level linear algebra.
What it comes down to is the theory that someone who's well versed and knowledgeable in a lot of things is going to be better than someone who is specialized in just one thing. These people learn how to think rather than learn how to program, and in the end they're better for it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as it were.
Amen to that. Instead of trying to compete with WoW in yet another fantasy setting, why not compete in a sci-fi setting? 40K has a lot of background material, they're constantly updating it with new races and new storylines, and it's just overall a lot more fun as a setting. It feels like they went with the fantasy setting because that's what every other game has done, and that's just dumb.
They don't have anywhere near the recognition outside of the IT industry that the ACLU has.
No they don't, but have they started to get a reputation in the legal industry? The reason I ask (and hope that somebody can answer) is because the ACLU has become publicly known more because of how long it's been around than its recent cases. I imagine that the EFF could be in the position that the ACLU was in a few decades ago. I imagine that the legal professionals, who watch cases more closely and see patterns much sooner than the public would, might see the EFF as an up and coming organization.
Either way, I sincerely hope that they win this case. Our civil liberties have been eroded enough since 9/11, thank you very much, and I for one wouldn't mind a few legal cases putting the fear of constitutional restrictions into the heart of our next president.
we need to know if she really thinks there were dinosaurs here 5,000 years ago. That's pretty important information, troll.
No it's not. It's not even close to important information. The important information with regards to science is whether or not she lets that belief move her to disrupt good science. If it does, then she's a much worse presidential candidate because of it. If it doesn't, then she's just as good a candidate as anyone else in that regard. Most of the time, all a president has to do is stay out of the way of the real scientists who decide whether or not a project gets funded, and as long as she can do that, then there's no reason to think she won't do fine in spite of her young earth creationist beliefs.
Even more than that, however, science funding isn't as important of a topic as many other things, including the war in iraq and constitutional rights. If you let something as dumb as creationism bar you from voting for the candidate who's superior in every other way, then you deserve what you get.
Yeah, ever since Bourne Identity, I've come to rely on Matt Damon's advice more and more. I mean, I betrayed the organization because it was right, and he's got kick-ass fighting moves. That's the guy I want my political commentary from!
Remember that for every one of your close-held beliefs about atheism, there are billions of folks out there who believe in a God. Think about that. Is everyone but you wrong? If your answer to that is "yes", then you need to grow up. We'll be waiting for you at the adults' table when you're ready.
Altered for the American audience's benefit. The vast majority of people in the US were religious by the last estimate; by taking religion out of it, aren't you just imposing your worldview on them?
The answer to that, of course, is "yes", but it's different because you're trying to make it so that there's no worldview at all rather than one that's based in religion. If you look at the trends, it seems that a majority or nearly a majority of the people would agree that religion needs to be taken out of politics, which means you've got a lot of religious people in that camp (myself included). But the fact of the matter is that you and people like you are trying to change the country to fit your view of what it should be, and it's different than it was in the past, and it's not as good for religious people and their families as what you're trying to do. Faulting them for wanting to keep the country the way that it was, the way that worked for them and their parents, seems rather small minded. If everyone would just come to the table and agree that the other side has a very valid viewpoint, concessions could be made and a lot of the hostilities would cease.
Instead, we're left with a militant group who wants everything accepted as long as it doesn't directly harm another person, oh, and by the way, unborn children aren't people, and we're left with a militant group of religious people, who want to raise their children in something close to the environment they were raised in, which isn't even close to the way that we are now, oh, and by the way, they're in favor of killing unborn babies, and babies are easily the most precious thing on the planet. Neither side is completely wrong, neither side is completely right, and neither side is willing to compromise. The two groups are identical in their actions if you replace a few core beliefs.
He just showed them why it is not such a good idea to put a religious person at the head of a science organisation
Because people will attack him irrationally? That doesn't make sense.
he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing
How would that have been more convincing? People thought he was asking to teach creationism in school, which he wasn't, and they were refusing to believe the truth even when the option for evidence was out there. Why would his stepping down from his position as a priest have been any more effective? Because scientists are taking an irrational stance towards religious people?
The point of the matter is that this is a classic example of intolerance because of his beliefs, not his performance. He was put at the head of the science organization for a reason, so presumably he was a good scientist. Why do his religious beliefs and practices suddenly matter if not because of an irrational bias against religion?
It seems to me that his comments were that children who believed in creationism should be taught the difference in a way that wouldn't raise their defenses. This is a good thing, and there's no argument about that. When you're an educator, you need to find methods to teach everyone, not just those who are receptive to what you have to say. In effect, he wanted to teach the difference between religious teaching and science, and that's a good thing for everyone since religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course, this may be the wrong forum to suggest that religion and science can coexist.
I don't believe that anti-religious fervor is reaching the point where it's unreasonable. I refuse to believe it, and I suspect you of heresy for even saying it.
Easy. Post a coding question, such as "how can I write a query to do x when the tables are y and z?" or "I've got this piece of code, and it's doing x when I want it to do y", or even "I need some obscure functionality with the win32 api. how can I do this?" You know, the same thing people used experts exchange for, only now it's free.
Maybe it's that economists tend to vote for the other issues that are important to them? The US economy is quite good and has been through all sorts of presidents. However, if you're a person who's religious, the divorce rate and the rate of children born out of wedlock might push you towards the republican side.
Or, since a lot of economists work in academia and do pure research, they probably take a very loose view on morality laws, and would therefore look to the democratic party. In terms of economics, Democrats are still to the right of a lot of countries with very good economies, leaving someone with a world view very little choice in the two parties.
That's to be assumed, since Fox News is the punch line to the joke that is the mainstream media. Since everyone with half a brain knows that fox news is biased, and Bill O'Reily is one of the worst, what reason could you possibly have to make that comment except to start an argument?
We are talking about someone who sells magic beans to little children. Only in our case, the beans never bother to sprout anything but beans.
I would disagree with that. He's done a lot of very revolutionary things, especially with Black and White. However, he never finishes. It's like making out with a girl in the back seat, hitting second base, and then she disappears. It's awesome, and there's definitely some promise, but in the end you're frustrated and unable to finish it. After a while, you may even look back and think, "that was a lot of fun, maybe I should go back and do it again."
how can we hope to educate them about how this scheme would usher in the dystopia RMS warned us about in "Right to Read"?
Yes, how can we warn them away from that unreadable garbage that is RMS's "Right to Read"? People are moving towards open source, colleges are moving that way, and there's always going to be an anarchist underground that will attack proprietary DRM, if only to help themselves get something for free.
Drawing a ridiculous relationship between the presidential election and RMS's drivel is new, however. Maybe you should look at the way that Obama comes off as a patronizing elitist who will ignore you for your own good to understand why people are drawn to McCain and Palin. Just a thought.
Also, let me go on record as saying that by 2010 most music will be purchased in a DRM-free format.
The GPL is essentially one big piece of legal crap, and it's definitely something that matters and is for nerds. IP laws are increasingly affecting the technological world in both code and hardware. They're affected the culture of the internet, especially the cultures that the slashdot crowd participates in the most. This is definitely the sort of thing that is news for nerds.
Slashdot Mirror
totally unchecked/balanced by other concerns
Yes, like going bankrupt, foreclosing, and going out of business. Now that we're on the other side, we know for sure that people shouldn't worry about that, because the government will bail them out! It's the best of both worlds, if you like taking money from the government.
The same could be said of anything, though. The more time you spend at it, the better you get. I would be a lot better at painting, I just don't take the time to grind the paint. I would be a lot better at trivia, I just don't read wikipedia all day. WoW just happens to model this with an experience and item system; arguably this levels the playing field more effectively than not having it, since it rewards everyone who plays it rather than just those who mash buttons.
Say what you want about it, in the end it comes down to personal taste. Millions of people love WoW, so obviously they're doing something right.
Heaven forbid that just *anyone* could get the most out of the game they pay to play
That's just the point, isn't it? Competitive gameplay usually means that someone wins and they get rewarded for it. In WoW, anyone can "win" regardless of how good they are, which can make the game less appealing for competitive people. How appealing would football or basketball be to play or to watch if, at the end, everyone was declared a winner and they hugged it out?
I'm not saying one or the other is better, just that some people will prefer a game that's more accessible to everyone and some people will prefer a more competitive atmosphere.
PC stands for "Personal Computer", which by definition includes Macs
That's a common myth. In actuality, Macs long ago left the realm of personal computing and evolved into a status symbol and fashion accessory. Most powerbooks sold these days don't even have a processor in them, just an etch-a-sketch, since they just look good with patched jeans, a 5 o'clock shadow and carefully mussed-up hair while letting the owner feel artistic.
Because it gives you a thorough grounding in theoretical math, the type of stuff that I do with computers every day. I program in PHP, which you might think would be even more removed from math than .NET and Java (because it is). But there's no doubt that the analysis of algorithms and the ability to do extended, involved proofs well beyond what you learn in geometry has helped me in my programming job. Hell, even knowledge of Databases is helped by some good, college level linear algebra.
What it comes down to is the theory that someone who's well versed and knowledgeable in a lot of things is going to be better than someone who is specialized in just one thing. These people learn how to think rather than learn how to program, and in the end they're better for it. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as it were.
I would have preferred to see a WH40K setting
Amen to that. Instead of trying to compete with WoW in yet another fantasy setting, why not compete in a sci-fi setting? 40K has a lot of background material, they're constantly updating it with new races and new storylines, and it's just overall a lot more fun as a setting. It feels like they went with the fantasy setting because that's what every other game has done, and that's just dumb.
They don't have anywhere near the recognition outside of the IT industry that the ACLU has.
No they don't, but have they started to get a reputation in the legal industry? The reason I ask (and hope that somebody can answer) is because the ACLU has become publicly known more because of how long it's been around than its recent cases. I imagine that the EFF could be in the position that the ACLU was in a few decades ago. I imagine that the legal professionals, who watch cases more closely and see patterns much sooner than the public would, might see the EFF as an up and coming organization.
Either way, I sincerely hope that they win this case. Our civil liberties have been eroded enough since 9/11, thank you very much, and I for one wouldn't mind a few legal cases putting the fear of constitutional restrictions into the heart of our next president.
we need to know if she really thinks there were dinosaurs here 5,000 years ago. That's pretty important information, troll.
No it's not. It's not even close to important information. The important information with regards to science is whether or not she lets that belief move her to disrupt good science. If it does, then she's a much worse presidential candidate because of it. If it doesn't, then she's just as good a candidate as anyone else in that regard. Most of the time, all a president has to do is stay out of the way of the real scientists who decide whether or not a project gets funded, and as long as she can do that, then there's no reason to think she won't do fine in spite of her young earth creationist beliefs.
Even more than that, however, science funding isn't as important of a topic as many other things, including the war in iraq and constitutional rights. If you let something as dumb as creationism bar you from voting for the candidate who's superior in every other way, then you deserve what you get.
Didn't I see this once on "Saved by the Bell"?
Is it just me, or are the posts by sony's employees getting more angry? Or should I say desperate?
What do they have on her?
Living in a very small town and a very small state with her? Or is that too easy?
Yeah, ever since Bourne Identity, I've come to rely on Matt Damon's advice more and more. I mean, I betrayed the organization because it was right, and he's got kick-ass fighting moves. That's the guy I want my political commentary from!
The bitch seat? If you've just been caught by a bicycle cop, I can't imagine a more fitting place for you to sit.
Remember that for every one of your close-held beliefs about atheism, there are billions of folks out there who believe in a God. Think about that. Is everyone but you wrong? If your answer to that is "yes", then you need to grow up. We'll be waiting for you at the adults' table when you're ready.
Altered for the American audience's benefit. The vast majority of people in the US were religious by the last estimate; by taking religion out of it, aren't you just imposing your worldview on them?
The answer to that, of course, is "yes", but it's different because you're trying to make it so that there's no worldview at all rather than one that's based in religion. If you look at the trends, it seems that a majority or nearly a majority of the people would agree that religion needs to be taken out of politics, which means you've got a lot of religious people in that camp (myself included). But the fact of the matter is that you and people like you are trying to change the country to fit your view of what it should be, and it's different than it was in the past, and it's not as good for religious people and their families as what you're trying to do. Faulting them for wanting to keep the country the way that it was, the way that worked for them and their parents, seems rather small minded. If everyone would just come to the table and agree that the other side has a very valid viewpoint, concessions could be made and a lot of the hostilities would cease.
Instead, we're left with a militant group who wants everything accepted as long as it doesn't directly harm another person, oh, and by the way, unborn children aren't people, and we're left with a militant group of religious people, who want to raise their children in something close to the environment they were raised in, which isn't even close to the way that we are now, oh, and by the way, they're in favor of killing unborn babies, and babies are easily the most precious thing on the planet. Neither side is completely wrong, neither side is completely right, and neither side is willing to compromise. The two groups are identical in their actions if you replace a few core beliefs.
I almost did it without the car, but then I realized that I needed to make it approachable to the average slashdotter ;)
He just showed them why it is not such a good idea to put a religious person at the head of a science organisation
Because people will attack him irrationally? That doesn't make sense.
he could have given up his religious position too, that would have been much more convincing
How would that have been more convincing? People thought he was asking to teach creationism in school, which he wasn't, and they were refusing to believe the truth even when the option for evidence was out there. Why would his stepping down from his position as a priest have been any more effective? Because scientists are taking an irrational stance towards religious people?
The point of the matter is that this is a classic example of intolerance because of his beliefs, not his performance. He was put at the head of the science organization for a reason, so presumably he was a good scientist. Why do his religious beliefs and practices suddenly matter if not because of an irrational bias against religion?
It seems to me that his comments were that children who believed in creationism should be taught the difference in a way that wouldn't raise their defenses. This is a good thing, and there's no argument about that. When you're an educator, you need to find methods to teach everyone, not just those who are receptive to what you have to say. In effect, he wanted to teach the difference between religious teaching and science, and that's a good thing for everyone since religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course, this may be the wrong forum to suggest that religion and science can coexist.
I don't believe that anti-religious fervor is reaching the point where it's unreasonable. I refuse to believe it, and I suspect you of heresy for even saying it.
Fart.
Easy. Post a coding question, such as "how can I write a query to do x when the tables are y and z?" or "I've got this piece of code, and it's doing x when I want it to do y", or even "I need some obscure functionality with the win32 api. how can I do this?" You know, the same thing people used experts exchange for, only now it's free.
Maybe it's that economists tend to vote for the other issues that are important to them? The US economy is quite good and has been through all sorts of presidents. However, if you're a person who's religious, the divorce rate and the rate of children born out of wedlock might push you towards the republican side.
Or, since a lot of economists work in academia and do pure research, they probably take a very loose view on morality laws, and would therefore look to the democratic party. In terms of economics, Democrats are still to the right of a lot of countries with very good economies, leaving someone with a world view very little choice in the two parties.
That's to be assumed, since Fox News is the punch line to the joke that is the mainstream media. Since everyone with half a brain knows that fox news is biased, and Bill O'Reily is one of the worst, what reason could you possibly have to make that comment except to start an argument?
We are talking about someone who sells magic beans to little children. Only in our case, the beans never bother to sprout anything but beans.
I would disagree with that. He's done a lot of very revolutionary things, especially with Black and White. However, he never finishes. It's like making out with a girl in the back seat, hitting second base, and then she disappears. It's awesome, and there's definitely some promise, but in the end you're frustrated and unable to finish it. After a while, you may even look back and think, "that was a lot of fun, maybe I should go back and do it again."
how can we hope to educate them about how this scheme would usher in the dystopia RMS warned us about in "Right to Read"?
Yes, how can we warn them away from that unreadable garbage that is RMS's "Right to Read"? People are moving towards open source, colleges are moving that way, and there's always going to be an anarchist underground that will attack proprietary DRM, if only to help themselves get something for free.
Drawing a ridiculous relationship between the presidential election and RMS's drivel is new, however. Maybe you should look at the way that Obama comes off as a patronizing elitist who will ignore you for your own good to understand why people are drawn to McCain and Palin. Just a thought.
Also, let me go on record as saying that by 2010 most music will be purchased in a DRM-free format.
The GPL is essentially one big piece of legal crap, and it's definitely something that matters and is for nerds. IP laws are increasingly affecting the technological world in both code and hardware. They're affected the culture of the internet, especially the cultures that the slashdot crowd participates in the most. This is definitely the sort of thing that is news for nerds.