I agree that the stickers meant nothing, but how does most systems being able to run vista just fine imply that someone at M$ is a gamer? I don't follow.
If ANYTHING, that means someone at M$ wanted to sell more powerful computers. (or signed a deal with someone)
A ) stop reducing EVERY argument to projecting your own failures with females. Not EVERYTHING is about getting laid. I talk starwars all day and then still manage to get laid. Anything you say "you should do X to get laid" is sexism. Thats assuming that women are in some way that men aren't. I assure you, for every guy out there going "rainbows are refractions of light!" there are JUST as many females saying the same thing.
And I'm not even like, women's lib or something, I'm a DUDE and I think you're stereotyping/oversimplifying.
B ) "fucking magnets, how do they work?" and "I don't wanna ask a scientist" has FUCK ALL to do with being able to see the aesthetic beauty in something. WHY does everybody act like everything has to be so boolean, its THIS or its THAT. How about, you can understand how the rainbow works, completely, scientifically, but you can still go "its pretty". I don't see the conflict there.
So, ultimately, you don't have to be ignorant, understanding science doesn't hurt you in any way, and this song is either just a troll attempt at publicity, or its just plain dumb. Look at us, we're ignorant! Yay!
Bah, grow up, get over your huge problems with ANY form of authority, and realize that this world doesn't run by your rules, it works by its own. If you want to understand them or not, thats up to you, but its only going to get you in trouble if you don't.
You seem to have missed his point completely. He was just saying, hey, lets still have the "boys" club and the "girls" club, but just make it so that the "boys" club isn't boys only, and the "girls" club isn't girls only. The "boys" club's job would be to appeal to boys, but if a girl wanted to join, let her.
Exactly. Not to mention all the possible exploits there are out there. I can tell you with 100% confidence right now that anybody running Skype can be used as a proxy without their knowledge in any way, and its completely untraceable.
Computer security for anything other than major business is a joke, and people need to realize that.
Your point is still moot though. I have broad experience with the United States, which makes up a very large part of the world, and I went ahead and stated that this may only apply to that part of the world. If you think 309 million people are insignificant, fine, but I don't, and I'm talking about those. Not EVERY SINGLE THING has to apply TO EVERYTHING. And I explicitly stated it didn't. Get over yourself.
Yeah, I absolutely agree. I don't want to hear that my president gets his combat orders from "God", and I don't want to hear that my scientists are all devout born again Christians. They're not, (Christians don't always make good scientists xD) but yeah, if we did have a crazy devout evangelical who was a reputable scientist, I'd want to know. It would honestly call into question every call or decision they've ever made.
Maybe another religion, one more tolerant of free thought and coming up with your own answers and one more aware of its own chance to be wrong, maybe then I'd be okay with it. But Christianity is so very much about blind faith, its ridiculous. It seems complete anathema to the scientific method and learning.
They don't, though. Thats the thing. God's all about war and violence and punishment and judgement, and Christianity worships fear more than love.
Maybe there are still some out there, but the idea of the true Jesus Christian who is a pacifist and loves thy brother is extinct in my part of the US.
Agnosticism is kinda missing the point IMO. I mean, being agnostic is the only absolutely defensible view, you honestly don't know whats up and thats good to admit.
But the whole question in religion is what do you BELIEVE. And while I love my empiricism and I used to be all about the agnosticism, when looking at the world and how it functions, I see patterns and I see how the universe could somewhat make sense, and then I see the Christian model and it absolutely does not make sense to me. We could live in the matrix for all I know, or maybe this is all just some child's dream. But then that would mean that most of our actions were meaningless, that most suffering was pointless, so I'd rather not believe in that universe. No, I believe in a universe that makes sense. If I take that as a given, that the universe has a purpose, and then add what science has taught me, I come to the conclusion that there is no God. The existence of any kind of God would be so obtuse and extremely complex and for God to just come about and have such arbitrary goals and demands, it just doesn't follow at all for me. But that we could live in a world where everything has slowly evolved from a very simple thing to a slightly more complex one, well, that MAKES SENSE. You can slowly look around and see how every single thing in this world is part of some gigantic fractal that we can't even imagine the sheer scale of, and it all just fits to me.
So I believe there isn't a god. Its not science, I don't claim to KNOW there isn't a god, and I certainly can't prove it. But rather than just say "I don't know whats up in the universe" I'm going to say "I don't know whats up, but I believe there isn't some old God man in the sky, personally".
Thats what religion is for. Its just important to remember that your religion is your beliefs, and not some holy perfect law handed down from on high.
Yeah, I have to agree. Its not to say that science inherently disproves religion; if we talk philosophical we know we can't really prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, but religion is inherently unscientific. It is a proposed answer, which is to be accepted as a given truth and all other knowledge built upon that foundation. Then, if something comes along and questions one of those beliefs that makes up your moral foundation, you have to actually DEFEND the wrong answer, because otherwise what could the implications be to your life? But on the other hand science is inherently humble (or it should be) and should constantly be correcting, always aware that it has no idea wtf its saying and its just running one test after another, but slowly through the scientific method the truth becomes clear. Religion really has no business being discussed by scientists.
Now, if those scientists want to come home after their science and talk openly about religion, go for it! I think the freedom of speech is one of the greatest powers (we used to) have. Everyone should feel comfortable to think about the meaning of life and to talk openly about it with others. But thats an entirely different thing from using religion IN science.
Sorry, but while a single particular study may have been about wavelength when dealing with color, and threw out subjective non-quantifiable aspects of green-ness, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing inherent to science that says you have to throw out everything non-quantifiable, thats just silly.
Another study could just as well focus entirely on the subject nature of color, and it wouldn't stop being scientific.
Are you serious? You think the reason most religious people don't trust science is that they're afraid scientists will travel to the planets, and create supermen? Thats even crazier than believing in God. People don't trust science because it conflicts with their fundamental beliefs, the beliefs they've structured their lives on, and they feel lost without. Its the dependency on ultimately arbitrary beliefs that leads to their downfall.
If you believe in religion and not science, wouldn't you believe that the scientists couldn't just blow up the plants and be gods? Wouldn't God stop them or something?
Its so hard to use logic with religion:P
The fact is thought that populations don't understand statistics or probability at ALL. You tell somebody that second-hand smoke caused an extra 20 child deaths this year, and they go freaking out, banning smoking from all public locations. Then you try to explain how that isn't statistically significant and they look at you like you're insane. I guess having the exact numbers right there to tell people might help, but most are going to ignore the numbers.
All of this is just a more fundamental problem with our society. We need to teach children to question their lives, to think freely, and to be ready for things to change. Instead, we kill the desire to learn and peer pressure forces them to establish foundational beliefs that set them up to be wrong again and again, and whats worse, to defend the wrong answers rather than realizing errors and correcting.
And I'm certain that if you spent all your time watching tv or listening to rock music, your parents said the same things.
And then their parents said the same things about movies, and their parents said the same thing about record players, and their parents said the same thing about fiction books, and their parents said the same thing about plays, and their parents said the same thing about epic poems...
Someone says how do I teach kid to program if he likes games?
Someone says be a good parent.
I jokingly reference a song.
Where's the racism? I'm not seeing it. White people can be just as terrible at raising kids and just as illiterate as other races. Also, the person who wrote that song was of a minority...
Yeah, but there's a difference between watching tv every night to wind down, and being obsessed with a sports team or show. The same is true for videogames, they're just another medium for entertainment and relaxation, and a few people take it too far. To extrapolate from those few extreme cases to cover everyone who plays a game every day for a few hours is just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the stickers meant nothing, but how does most systems being able to run vista just fine imply that someone at M$ is a gamer? I don't follow. If ANYTHING, that means someone at M$ wanted to sell more powerful computers. (or signed a deal with someone)
Then the problem here is the state-sponsored software monopoly held by Microsoft, not the chipset manufacturers.
I would like to thank Sumdumass for naming himself accurately.
A ) stop reducing EVERY argument to projecting your own failures with females. Not EVERYTHING is about getting laid. I talk starwars all day and then still manage to get laid. Anything you say "you should do X to get laid" is sexism. Thats assuming that women are in some way that men aren't. I assure you, for every guy out there going "rainbows are refractions of light!" there are JUST as many females saying the same thing.
And I'm not even like, women's lib or something, I'm a DUDE and I think you're stereotyping/oversimplifying.
B ) "fucking magnets, how do they work?" and "I don't wanna ask a scientist" has FUCK ALL to do with being able to see the aesthetic beauty in something. WHY does everybody act like everything has to be so boolean, its THIS or its THAT. How about, you can understand how the rainbow works, completely, scientifically, but you can still go "its pretty". I don't see the conflict there.
So, ultimately, you don't have to be ignorant, understanding science doesn't hurt you in any way, and this song is either just a troll attempt at publicity, or its just plain dumb. Look at us, we're ignorant! Yay!
Bah, grow up, get over your huge problems with ANY form of authority, and realize that this world doesn't run by your rules, it works by its own. If you want to understand them or not, thats up to you, but its only going to get you in trouble if you don't.
"I don't wanna talk to no scientist; ya'll motherfuckers lying and getting me pissed."
"t's just anti-religious elitism"
Since when were religion and technology the same? Last I checked, religion has been the largest hindrance on science...
fuck statistics, how does that work?
nice burn.
You seem to have missed his point completely. He was just saying, hey, lets still have the "boys" club and the "girls" club, but just make it so that the "boys" club isn't boys only, and the "girls" club isn't girls only. The "boys" club's job would be to appeal to boys, but if a girl wanted to join, let her.
Exactly. Not to mention all the possible exploits there are out there. I can tell you with 100% confidence right now that anybody running Skype can be used as a proxy without their knowledge in any way, and its completely untraceable. Computer security for anything other than major business is a joke, and people need to realize that.
like the publisher has everything to do with the development of the game.
If you want to blame somebody for Supcom2, blame Gas Powered Games.
You misunderstand the word theory.
Your point is still moot though. I have broad experience with the United States, which makes up a very large part of the world, and I went ahead and stated that this may only apply to that part of the world. If you think 309 million people are insignificant, fine, but I don't, and I'm talking about those. Not EVERY SINGLE THING has to apply TO EVERYTHING. And I explicitly stated it didn't. Get over yourself.
Whoa! Thats wicked interesting, and indeed super counterintuitive. Good point.
I have considered it, which is why I qualified it and said my part of the US. You expect me to be omniscient?
Yeah, I absolutely agree. I don't want to hear that my president gets his combat orders from "God", and I don't want to hear that my scientists are all devout born again Christians. They're not, (Christians don't always make good scientists xD) but yeah, if we did have a crazy devout evangelical who was a reputable scientist, I'd want to know. It would honestly call into question every call or decision they've ever made.
Maybe another religion, one more tolerant of free thought and coming up with your own answers and one more aware of its own chance to be wrong, maybe then I'd be okay with it. But Christianity is so very much about blind faith, its ridiculous. It seems complete anathema to the scientific method and learning.
They don't, though. Thats the thing. God's all about war and violence and punishment and judgement, and Christianity worships fear more than love. Maybe there are still some out there, but the idea of the true Jesus Christian who is a pacifist and loves thy brother is extinct in my part of the US.
Agnosticism is kinda missing the point IMO. I mean, being agnostic is the only absolutely defensible view, you honestly don't know whats up and thats good to admit. But the whole question in religion is what do you BELIEVE. And while I love my empiricism and I used to be all about the agnosticism, when looking at the world and how it functions, I see patterns and I see how the universe could somewhat make sense, and then I see the Christian model and it absolutely does not make sense to me. We could live in the matrix for all I know, or maybe this is all just some child's dream. But then that would mean that most of our actions were meaningless, that most suffering was pointless, so I'd rather not believe in that universe. No, I believe in a universe that makes sense. If I take that as a given, that the universe has a purpose, and then add what science has taught me, I come to the conclusion that there is no God. The existence of any kind of God would be so obtuse and extremely complex and for God to just come about and have such arbitrary goals and demands, it just doesn't follow at all for me. But that we could live in a world where everything has slowly evolved from a very simple thing to a slightly more complex one, well, that MAKES SENSE. You can slowly look around and see how every single thing in this world is part of some gigantic fractal that we can't even imagine the sheer scale of, and it all just fits to me. So I believe there isn't a god. Its not science, I don't claim to KNOW there isn't a god, and I certainly can't prove it. But rather than just say "I don't know whats up in the universe" I'm going to say "I don't know whats up, but I believe there isn't some old God man in the sky, personally". Thats what religion is for. Its just important to remember that your religion is your beliefs, and not some holy perfect law handed down from on high.
Yeah, I have to agree. Its not to say that science inherently disproves religion; if we talk philosophical we know we can't really prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, but religion is inherently unscientific. It is a proposed answer, which is to be accepted as a given truth and all other knowledge built upon that foundation. Then, if something comes along and questions one of those beliefs that makes up your moral foundation, you have to actually DEFEND the wrong answer, because otherwise what could the implications be to your life? But on the other hand science is inherently humble (or it should be) and should constantly be correcting, always aware that it has no idea wtf its saying and its just running one test after another, but slowly through the scientific method the truth becomes clear. Religion really has no business being discussed by scientists. Now, if those scientists want to come home after their science and talk openly about religion, go for it! I think the freedom of speech is one of the greatest powers (we used to) have. Everyone should feel comfortable to think about the meaning of life and to talk openly about it with others. But thats an entirely different thing from using religion IN science.
Sorry, but while a single particular study may have been about wavelength when dealing with color, and threw out subjective non-quantifiable aspects of green-ness, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing inherent to science that says you have to throw out everything non-quantifiable, thats just silly.
:P
Another study could just as well focus entirely on the subject nature of color, and it wouldn't stop being scientific.
Are you serious? You think the reason most religious people don't trust science is that they're afraid scientists will travel to the planets, and create supermen? Thats even crazier than believing in God. People don't trust science because it conflicts with their fundamental beliefs, the beliefs they've structured their lives on, and they feel lost without. Its the dependency on ultimately arbitrary beliefs that leads to their downfall.
If you believe in religion and not science, wouldn't you believe that the scientists couldn't just blow up the plants and be gods? Wouldn't God stop them or something?
Its so hard to use logic with religion
The fact is thought that populations don't understand statistics or probability at ALL. You tell somebody that second-hand smoke caused an extra 20 child deaths this year, and they go freaking out, banning smoking from all public locations. Then you try to explain how that isn't statistically significant and they look at you like you're insane. I guess having the exact numbers right there to tell people might help, but most are going to ignore the numbers.
All of this is just a more fundamental problem with our society. We need to teach children to question their lives, to think freely, and to be ready for things to change. Instead, we kill the desire to learn and peer pressure forces them to establish foundational beliefs that set them up to be wrong again and again, and whats worse, to defend the wrong answers rather than realizing errors and correcting.
He was just making an example, so its not really important that the real life case is there and is properly explained, but yeah.
don't be glib, its a pseudoscience!
And I'm certain that if you spent all your time watching tv or listening to rock music, your parents said the same things.
And then their parents said the same things about movies, and their parents said the same thing about record players, and their parents said the same thing about fiction books, and their parents said the same thing about plays, and their parents said the same thing about epic poems...
Move on, luddite.
Someone says how do I teach kid to program if he likes games?
Someone says be a good parent.
I jokingly reference a song.
Where's the racism? I'm not seeing it. White people can be just as terrible at raising kids and just as illiterate as other races. Also, the person who wrote that song was of a minority...
Yeah, but there's a difference between watching tv every night to wind down, and being obsessed with a sports team or show. The same is true for videogames, they're just another medium for entertainment and relaxation, and a few people take it too far. To extrapolate from those few extreme cases to cover everyone who plays a game every day for a few hours is just wrong.
Raise your kids, raise your kids, raise your goddamn kids!
Read a book, read a book, read a motherfucking book!