You're missing the point - the fact that it is unscientific is PRECISELY why you cannot say it is wrong. But they want me to take ID as science! How am I supposed to answer that but on scientific terms?
I repeat, the very reason why it is plainly wrong is because it's trying to take religious arguments as science and not as an act of pure faith. Once they do that, they're out of any kind of scientific discussion.
Ehm... Why the hell don't you read the GP post then? He was clearly talking about Intelligent Design, the pseudo-religious doctrine, and that was the point which I responded to. And I'm not in the US, I'm actually Argentine.
Ehm... I was talking about Intelligent Design, the idea that, somehow, it's scientifically proven that god exists as a creator, following literally what's written in the Bible. I think you took the word "design" in the normal sense...
Science is based on testing the validity of things. In no way the Big Bang theory is definite, and that's the very core of science: to test things. The Big Bang works as of now, as does evolution, but there's no problem in testing their validity as theories (note that the scientific meaning of "theory" is different from the layman's). ID simply tries to make science out of pure faith. It's true that you can't disprove the possibility of there being a superior being far beyond our understanding, but saying that it's true, that science in general is wrong and that the Earth is 6000 years old and trying to bring that argument to a scientific discussion won't work, because there's no science in it, only "the Bible says it!". I don't oppose people believing that sort of thing, I oppose people trying to make science out of it.
As it is commonly said, science explains how, not why. Religion tries to find the answer to the latter question. By trying to explain the "how" with religious beliefs, you're negating all scientific validity of the discussion.
You can't say ID is wrong just because of your bias - when it is clearly "not even wrong" - it's very wrongness impossible to prove or falsify. It's unscientific. It's enough for me to ignore it when discussing science. Now, if we're gonna talk about faith, well, that's no problem at all, but please don't bring up ID in a scientific discussion.
Whoa, what a way of making unjustified assumptions there:)
In some ways, you're right, no one can escape consumerism, which is the main premise of the capitalist world we're living today. I can't say I'm not part of the whole game we call "the system"... but that doesn't justify the Apple fanboys' reactions, either.
For instance, intelligent design. That's not a fair comparison. Intelligent design cannot _ever_ hope to partake in a scientific discussion, because there's no science behind it, and that's _it_. No point in debating something that's completely wrong in any way you look at it. Different opinions on different products, however, are a different issue altogether.
Seriously, market a product as "stylish", "hip" and "different", and you'll raise a troupe of people to whom presenting themselves as different is pretty much their only end. I personally find it one of the most disgusting facets of consumerist capitalism.
I'd like to see what exactly did that research investigate, and with what point of view did they define "conservative". It's really hard to apply the American way of dividing the spectrum in "liberal" and "conservative" in Latin America, because the societies themselves differ a lot. Either way, making a sweeping generalization on a simple article (which you didn't even provide a source for), which in turn is based simply on the subset of the Latin population living in the US and probably uses a system of reference which doesn't really apply to the Latin American society in general, falls quite near the "Asshole Conservatism" (or quite simply "Asshole Closedmindness") you mentioned.
* if there is a way to install without booting to the live environment, it didn't jump out at me when I put the CD in. There's an alternative CD that allows you to install it the old way (it uses curses to draw a simple GUI). You have to tick the 'alternative CD' option when downloading it from the Ubuntu website.
LOLOLOLOL! That's old news, buddy! The "green midget", as it was called by the sensationalistic local press, hasn't been talked about here since 2000 or so.
None of us like to judge or to punish. Yet we may be the only people on Earth with a right to punish, since we can undo the damage we do in most cases. Therefore never punish beyond our easy ability to remedy by auditing and restoration. That's outright insane. That's L. Ron Hubbard himself telling his followers that they have the absolute moral right to damage anyone basically because they can "undo the damage". It's completely insane, but I believe I see what people see in this. I suppose it gives them a degree of "superiority" feeling over their non-Scion peers... but it's still pretty hard to believe that people actually read this shit and think it's actually right.
Oh, people have believed in the Bible for centuries. Nevermind.
Yes, it is. The whole discussion here is just disgusting. I'm against censorship, but I'm against closed-minded stupidity, too. And the people posting here seem to have plenty of it.
To add to the GP's point, the US was extremely supportive of the military dictatorships that ruled over South America in the 60's and 70's. A great deal of the South American countries' current economic problems have to do with the debts contracted by the military governments who, with support from the IMF, literally sold the country away to their big international corporate friends. Remember--the IMF had swore under the Washington Treaty never to lend any money to countries under a non-democratic regime, since evidently it was hard to guarantee the use of the money in favor of the people of those countries... but they did it anyways. The money ended up in the military governors & friends' pockets, and the debt is ours to pay.
Older TVs used to produce a faint whine (from the flyback circuit?) that was above some people's range. Hey, I still hear that, and not only from old TVs, you know:P
As for gaming better on XP, I'm not sure. Vista has DX10, which should hopefully give it an advantage down the road.
I'm pretty sure the DX10 thing is an artificial wall crafted between Vista and XP, especially considering MS has always boasted its legacy support as one of its keynote advantages. It shouldn't be too difficult, provided that the DirectX code were open, to port DX10 to XP.
Other than that, I agree with you in general terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I repeat, the very reason why it is plainly wrong is because it's trying to take religious arguments as science and not as an act of pure faith. Once they do that, they're out of any kind of scientific discussion.
Ehm... Why the hell don't you read the GP post then? He was clearly talking about Intelligent Design, the pseudo-religious doctrine, and that was the point which I responded to. And I'm not in the US, I'm actually Argentine.
Ehm... I was talking about Intelligent Design, the idea that, somehow, it's scientifically proven that god exists as a creator, following literally what's written in the Bible. I think you took the word "design" in the normal sense...
Science is based on testing the validity of things. In no way the Big Bang theory is definite, and that's the very core of science: to test things. The Big Bang works as of now, as does evolution, but there's no problem in testing their validity as theories (note that the scientific meaning of "theory" is different from the layman's). ID simply tries to make science out of pure faith. It's true that you can't disprove the possibility of there being a superior being far beyond our understanding, but saying that it's true, that science in general is wrong and that the Earth is 6000 years old and trying to bring that argument to a scientific discussion won't work, because there's no science in it, only "the Bible says it!". I don't oppose people believing that sort of thing, I oppose people trying to make science out of it.
As it is commonly said, science explains how, not why. Religion tries to find the answer to the latter question. By trying to explain the "how" with religious beliefs, you're negating all scientific validity of the discussion.
Whoa, what a way of making unjustified assumptions there :)
In some ways, you're right, no one can escape consumerism, which is the main premise of the capitalist world we're living today. I can't say I'm not part of the whole game we call "the system"... but that doesn't justify the Apple fanboys' reactions, either.
..and their ad campaigns.
Seriously, market a product as "stylish", "hip" and "different", and you'll raise a troupe of people to whom presenting themselves as different is pretty much their only end. I personally find it one of the most disgusting facets of consumerist capitalism.
Says the guy who's got a sig that mocks Mac users.
I'd like to see what exactly did that research investigate, and with what point of view did they define "conservative". It's really hard to apply the American way of dividing the spectrum in "liberal" and "conservative" in Latin America, because the societies themselves differ a lot. Either way, making a sweeping generalization on a simple article (which you didn't even provide a source for), which in turn is based simply on the subset of the Latin population living in the US and probably uses a system of reference which doesn't really apply to the Latin American society in general, falls quite near the "Asshole Conservatism" (or quite simply "Asshole Closedmindness") you mentioned.
That's why me, a bass guitar player, can't stand playing Guitar Hero in anything else than the PS2 gamepad.
LOLOLOLOL! That's old news, buddy! The "green midget", as it was called by the sensationalistic local press, hasn't been talked about here since 2000 or so.
JUDGE AND PUNISHMENT
None of us like to judge or to punish. Yet we may be the only people on Earth with a right to punish, since we can undo the damage we do in most cases. Therefore never punish beyond our easy ability to remedy by auditing and restoration. That's outright insane. That's L. Ron Hubbard himself telling his followers that they have the absolute moral right to damage anyone basically because they can "undo the damage". It's completely insane, but I believe I see what people see in this. I suppose it gives them a degree of "superiority" feeling over their non-Scion peers... but it's still pretty hard to believe that people actually read this shit and think it's actually right.
Oh, people have believed in the Bible for centuries. Nevermind.
Mods need to watch more Monty Python.
WOOOOOSH!
THANK YOU for being the first sensate person to respond to this discussion.
Yes, it is. The whole discussion here is just disgusting. I'm against censorship, but I'm against closed-minded stupidity, too. And the people posting here seem to have plenty of it.
I thought the Chair-Man was Ballmer?
You can click on "Download" to get the .wmv file, and mplayer can play that with its binary codecs.
To add to the GP's point, the US was extremely supportive of the military dictatorships that ruled over South America in the 60's and 70's. A great deal of the South American countries' current economic problems have to do with the debts contracted by the military governments who, with support from the IMF, literally sold the country away to their big international corporate friends. Remember--the IMF had swore under the Washington Treaty never to lend any money to countries under a non-democratic regime, since evidently it was hard to guarantee the use of the money in favor of the people of those countries... but they did it anyways. The money ended up in the military governors & friends' pockets, and the debt is ours to pay.
Thank you, US.
I'm pretty sure the DX10 thing is an artificial wall crafted between Vista and XP, especially considering MS has always boasted its legacy support as one of its keynote advantages. It shouldn't be too difficult, provided that the DirectX code were open, to port DX10 to XP.
Other than that, I agree with you in general terms.