The only way to make education fair is to teach to the learning strengths of the gender. The only way for end result equality to occur is to segregate.
Boys used to be on top, teaching methods were changed to make things more "fair" for girls, and now girls are on the top. Some people like to call this fair, saying that it's time that girls were on top. This is far from fair.
Then again, people would cry about things not being equal with all-boys or all-girls schools.
See, the funny part is that I don't really care if the three points I made or true or not. I intentionally camped them up, they were satiric. The true point was the last part of my post, in which I stated that a lot of environmentalist groups are throwing up a lot of noise over meaningless topics, or preventing us from pursuing meaningful methods of improving our lifestyle and the environmental impact at the same time.
With all seriousness, why aren't we building breeder nuclear reactors? France is over 90% nuclear, and the complaints I hear from people are about the toxic waste. Once I explain how little waste comes from breeders, they become more like "WTF, why aren't we building nuclear power plants." Simply put, regardless of whether the founder of Green Peace (who is no longer with the organization) says we should build nuclear, individuals hear Green Peace's lies about nuclear power.
I am not a chemist and I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I don't understand how changing the acidity of the ocean is going to make it capable of absorbing more CO2.
If both the lime and CO2 bind with water molecules, isn't adding lime reducing the amount of water molecules that are left to bind with CO2?
Mod parent up insightful. This is the reason why we can't get anything done. The environmentalists (for the most part) are ass backwards on everything.
Let's keep around the old trees and kill the young ones. You can't clear out any of the underbrush, and we have to stop wild fires right away! (See California) You can't have nuclear power plants, the waste contaminates the environment. (Breeder reactors anyone?)
Basically, the enviro-hippies are throwing out so much noise which is irritating the hell out of a lot of people, and making it harder to do anything meaningful.
There's a difference between a silent film and a film that lacks verbal dialogue. A silent film has NO sound, and relies on subtitles for dialogue. Old silent films had a live organist or band to provide the music.
A film without verbal dialogue is just that, a film without dialogue. It can still contain sounds. Wall E has a tremendous amount of dialogue, played out through the robots vocalization and how they act. You watch it and you begin to realize how much can be communicated without using a verbal language.
Just because a system supports a keyboard and mouse, doesn't mean the developers for the games will use it, nor will the consumers buy it (the mouse and keyboard). So, even if the game is designed with keyboard and mouse input considered, you still have to design the game to be played with just the controller, unless you bundle the additional accessories with it.
FPS has done fine on the console, I don't like it because lacks the precision of a mouse, but it's not bad, just look at Halo. The issue comes up if you try to mix console and PC platform players in a FPS, which has been done before.
RTS is the only game category where I consider definitely sub-par. FPS, like I said, are doable and can be done, but it's dependent on the sensitivity of the control sticks. This is one of the reasons I dislike FPS for XBox 360 compared to PS3. The PS3 has a much smoother feel on the joystick, and I feel like I have better control.
If you want some more RTS games, how about these...
Starcraft/Warcraft (Blizzard) Myth (Bungie) Command and Conquer (Westwood) Homeworld (Sierra) Supreme Commander (Gas Powered Games) XXX: Total War (Creative Assembly)\
Or how about you name some RTS games on the consoles to support that RTS games can be good on the console? I can only think of 3, and they've all been based on games that were pioneered on the PC, and were dumbed down for the console.
I'm not claiming just one company is not making RTS games for consoles. There's way too much you need to do that essentially requires a keyboard in order to have all the necessary input.
Let's take a PS3 controller, assuming the left stick is for moving the cursor and the right stick is for moving the screen (unless you want to only move around the map by clicking on the minimap, or moving your cursor to the edges), and the Start button being utilized to bring up the pause menu, that leaves you with the directional pad, L1/L2/R1/R2, Triangle, Circle, Square, X and Select. Possibly also R3 and L3. X would likely be used to select units, gui objects, and menu items. Triangle would be useful for issuing the basic move action. Use Circle for the attack command (also includes attacking on way). That leaves square for some action.
Now onto the trigger buttons. If the designers decide to make this a top down with no way to rotate or tilt the camera, you're going to free up the trigger buttons. Otherwise you're going to use the L1 and R1 buttons for rotation and L2 and R2 for tilting the camera.
Assuming all of that, I'm left with the Select, Square, and directional keys. That means at best 6 hotkey unit groups (likely 4 for the directional buttons only) instead of the 10 or 12 you get in RTS.
There's just simply not enough input available for an RTS. This could change on the Wii, but I really wouldn't want to be making gestures in order to control my troops.
Unfortunately, the domain of strategy games has sorely lacked footing in breaking into the console market. Sure there's a few, but they're all turn based. You just can't get games like Starcraft, Warcraft, or any other type of Real Time strategy on a console.
Name one acknowledged evolutionary scientist who today considers the theory of evolution to be incorrect. Not minor detail nitpicking, an actual scientist in this discipline who thinks the whole theory is bonkers and should be replaced with something else entirely. Just one and I'll shut up.
If you find one, I'd be amazed as well. I'd be amazed that the individual is basically willing to end his scientific career, since that is basically what would happen. He might be able to get into some other scientific discipline, but for all purposes his career in evolution is over. He won't get grant money, he would be ostracized by his peers. This massive rebuttal would possibly also leak over to other disciplines. "Hey this guy said that he didn't think evolution was sound. How do we know he's going to be true in this new discipline?"
Christianity really shouldn't even teach from the Old Testament, the only purpose that it serves is to provide all the prophecies that pointed to the coming of Christ. Christianity should be taught from the New Testament, and specifically the Gospels.
Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history happened, giving a clear mandate to our lawmakers to end the war? Somehow that didn't happen. Somehow the legislative groundwork got laid for another war in the meantime.
Once again, I get to explain to people that the Democrats gaining control of Congress was not a mandate to end the war like they thought. Republicans get voted in, usually, on Conservative principles and then betray those principles once they hit DC. Conservatives aren't forgiving of their representatives that do this. In the 2006 election, they let their representatives lose.
In reality, that mandate to end the war was not the case. Congress could have cut funding to the war, and if the mandate were true, would have suffered little backlash from it. Most people support the war, and Congress knows that if they pulled some stunt like cutting funding, they would have been out of there on their next election.
1. There's two ways to coerce someone to help you. You use a carrot or a stick. Someone who throws around money to get everything he wants is just as much a bully as the person who threatens physical harm. 2. If you knew someone was spying on you and you were committing illegal acts, would you continue to perform those acts in the eye of the monitoring? 3. Perhaps the telcos knew that they were innocent in this matter, but not in others? Retroactive immunity protects them from ANY investigation with regards to the wire-tapping. Perhaps there was no wrong done with wiretapping, but certain other practices that they had done were illegal and would have become easily noticed with an investigation into the wiretapping.
It wasn't created to target Conservatives, however what the purpose of reviving it appears to be geared towards targeting Conservative talk radio.
Walk with me, if you will. You can get both Conservative and Liberal leaning news from websites, television and newspapers. However, the same cannot be said about radio. It is dominated by Conservative talk radio, and the only Liberal talk radio has survived essentially subsidized by the government.
Any medium of news is subsidized through ad revenue, and ad revenue is based upon the ratings of the shows during which they air. Rush Limbaugh along generates a constant 13.6 million listeners during the course of his 3 hours show. On the other hand, the best ratings I've found for Air America is 1.5 million unique listens over a week. Air America just doesn't generate enough ad revenue to keep it in enough markets, proof being that they had to file for bankruptcy.
Now how does all of this and the fairness doctrine show an attempt to censor conservative talk radio?
Ratings show that liberal talk radio just cannot compete against conservative talk radio. It doesn't get carried, or it gets dismally low ratings. Radio stations that carried shows like Rush's would be required to carry liberal shows (or at least the liberals mentioned) for the same amount of time. Mind you, the Fairness Doctrine applies to stations, not the individuals that produce the shows the stations carry.
Now with the fairness doctrine, a station would almost certainly be forced to carry 3 hours of Air America for every 3 hours of Rush's show in order to make close to the balance required by the act. You won't get Rush letting liberals on his show to defend themselves against his points, so the stations need to adapt as best they can. Here's where the problem comes, since the liberal shows will not draw as much revenue as the conservative ones, it may cost the station enough revenue that they wouldn't be able to operate in the black. Since they're hijacked by the law to reduce their revenue, they either go out of business, or get non-controversial programing that allows them to operate in the black.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to make education fair is to teach to the learning strengths of the gender. The only way for end result equality to occur is to segregate.
Boys used to be on top, teaching methods were changed to make things more "fair" for girls, and now girls are on the top. Some people like to call this fair, saying that it's time that girls were on top. This is far from fair.
Then again, people would cry about things not being equal with all-boys or all-girls schools.
I since a disturbance in the net, as if a million nerds suddenly unzipped their pants.
How about a Tachikoma?
So that explains the sudden increase in the overweight population of America.
See, the funny part is that I don't really care if the three points I made or true or not. I intentionally camped them up, they were satiric. The true point was the last part of my post, in which I stated that a lot of environmentalist groups are throwing up a lot of noise over meaningless topics, or preventing us from pursuing meaningful methods of improving our lifestyle and the environmental impact at the same time.
With all seriousness, why aren't we building breeder nuclear reactors? France is over 90% nuclear, and the complaints I hear from people are about the toxic waste. Once I explain how little waste comes from breeders, they become more like "WTF, why aren't we building nuclear power plants." Simply put, regardless of whether the founder of Green Peace (who is no longer with the organization) says we should build nuclear, individuals hear Green Peace's lies about nuclear power.
Our cruisers can't repel mistakes of that magnitude!
I am not a chemist and I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I don't understand how changing the acidity of the ocean is going to make it capable of absorbing more CO2.
If both the lime and CO2 bind with water molecules, isn't adding lime reducing the amount of water molecules that are left to bind with CO2?
Mod parent up insightful. This is the reason why we can't get anything done. The environmentalists (for the most part) are ass backwards on everything.
Let's keep around the old trees and kill the young ones.
You can't clear out any of the underbrush, and we have to stop wild fires right away! (See California)
You can't have nuclear power plants, the waste contaminates the environment. (Breeder reactors anyone?)
Basically, the enviro-hippies are throwing out so much noise which is irritating the hell out of a lot of people, and making it harder to do anything meaningful.
There's a difference between a silent film and a film that lacks verbal dialogue. A silent film has NO sound, and relies on subtitles for dialogue. Old silent films had a live organist or band to provide the music.
A film without verbal dialogue is just that, a film without dialogue. It can still contain sounds. Wall E has a tremendous amount of dialogue, played out through the robots vocalization and how they act. You watch it and you begin to realize how much can be communicated without using a verbal language.
I thought of this guy when I first saw Wall E.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.O.B.
Though Johnny 5 came in second place.
It's the new marketing campaign for Viagra.
"Go from 5 inches to 12.7 centimeters over night!"
Just because a system supports a keyboard and mouse, doesn't mean the developers for the games will use it, nor will the consumers buy it (the mouse and keyboard). So, even if the game is designed with keyboard and mouse input considered, you still have to design the game to be played with just the controller, unless you bundle the additional accessories with it.
FPS has done fine on the console, I don't like it because lacks the precision of a mouse, but it's not bad, just look at Halo. The issue comes up if you try to mix console and PC platform players in a FPS, which has been done before.
RTS is the only game category where I consider definitely sub-par. FPS, like I said, are doable and can be done, but it's dependent on the sensitivity of the control sticks. This is one of the reasons I dislike FPS for XBox 360 compared to PS3. The PS3 has a much smoother feel on the joystick, and I feel like I have better control.
If you want some more RTS games, how about these...
Starcraft/Warcraft (Blizzard)
Myth (Bungie)
Command and Conquer (Westwood)
Homeworld (Sierra)
Supreme Commander (Gas Powered Games)
XXX: Total War (Creative Assembly)\
Or how about you name some RTS games on the consoles to support that RTS games can be good on the console? I can only think of 3, and they've all been based on games that were pioneered on the PC, and were dumbed down for the console.
I'm not claiming just one company is not making RTS games for consoles. There's way too much you need to do that essentially requires a keyboard in order to have all the necessary input.
Let's take a PS3 controller, assuming the left stick is for moving the cursor and the right stick is for moving the screen (unless you want to only move around the map by clicking on the minimap, or moving your cursor to the edges), and the Start button being utilized to bring up the pause menu, that leaves you with the directional pad, L1/L2/R1/R2, Triangle, Circle, Square, X and Select. Possibly also R3 and L3. X would likely be used to select units, gui objects, and menu items. Triangle would be useful for issuing the basic move action. Use Circle for the attack command (also includes attacking on way). That leaves square for some action.
Now onto the trigger buttons. If the designers decide to make this a top down with no way to rotate or tilt the camera, you're going to free up the trigger buttons. Otherwise you're going to use the L1 and R1 buttons for rotation and L2 and R2 for tilting the camera.
Assuming all of that, I'm left with the Select, Square, and directional keys. That means at best 6 hotkey unit groups (likely 4 for the directional buttons only) instead of the 10 or 12 you get in RTS.
There's just simply not enough input available for an RTS. This could change on the Wii, but I really wouldn't want to be making gestures in order to control my troops.
Unfortunately, the domain of strategy games has sorely lacked footing in breaking into the console market. Sure there's a few, but they're all turn based. You just can't get games like Starcraft, Warcraft, or any other type of Real Time strategy on a console.
I suggest we initiate the Defenestration of /. In honor of the second Defenestration of Prague, we toss the editors into a cart full of horse poo.
I was looking at the definitions of defenestration...
I really like the first one.
1 : a throwing of a person or thing out of a window
The second one seems like something that should be done more often.
2 : a usually swift dismissal or expulsion (as from a political party or office)
I would like to defenestrate most politicians via defenestration.
Given that the Amazon is relatively close to the equator, wouldn't they be able to grow certain food crops practically year round?
Name one acknowledged evolutionary scientist who today considers the theory of evolution to be incorrect. Not minor detail nitpicking, an actual scientist in this discipline who thinks the whole theory is bonkers and should be replaced with something else entirely. Just one and I'll shut up.
If you find one, I'd be amazed as well. I'd be amazed that the individual is basically willing to end his scientific career, since that is basically what would happen. He might be able to get into some other scientific discipline, but for all purposes his career in evolution is over. He won't get grant money, he would be ostracized by his peers. This massive rebuttal would possibly also leak over to other disciplines. "Hey this guy said that he didn't think evolution was sound. How do we know he's going to be true in this new discipline?"
So which science is wrong? Quantum mechanics, or relativity? Last I knew these two weren't able to fit into one model.
Christianity really shouldn't even teach from the Old Testament, the only purpose that it serves is to provide all the prophecies that pointed to the coming of Christ. Christianity should be taught from the New Testament, and specifically the Gospels.
Don't you remember 2006? When the largest upheaval in Congressional history happened, giving a clear mandate to our lawmakers to end the war? Somehow that didn't happen. Somehow the legislative groundwork got laid for another war in the meantime.
Once again, I get to explain to people that the Democrats gaining control of Congress was not a mandate to end the war like they thought. Republicans get voted in, usually, on Conservative principles and then betray those principles once they hit DC. Conservatives aren't forgiving of their representatives that do this. In the 2006 election, they let their representatives lose.
In reality, that mandate to end the war was not the case. Congress could have cut funding to the war, and if the mandate were true, would have suffered little backlash from it. Most people support the war, and Congress knows that if they pulled some stunt like cutting funding, they would have been out of there on their next election.
Just to play devil's advocate...
1. There's two ways to coerce someone to help you. You use a carrot or a stick. Someone who throws around money to get everything he wants is just as much a bully as the person who threatens physical harm.
2. If you knew someone was spying on you and you were committing illegal acts, would you continue to perform those acts in the eye of the monitoring?
3. Perhaps the telcos knew that they were innocent in this matter, but not in others? Retroactive immunity protects them from ANY investigation with regards to the wire-tapping. Perhaps there was no wrong done with wiretapping, but certain other practices that they had done were illegal and would have become easily noticed with an investigation into the wiretapping.
It wasn't created to target Conservatives, however what the purpose of reviving it appears to be geared towards targeting Conservative talk radio.
Walk with me, if you will. You can get both Conservative and Liberal leaning news from websites, television and newspapers. However, the same cannot be said about radio. It is dominated by Conservative talk radio, and the only Liberal talk radio has survived essentially subsidized by the government.
Any medium of news is subsidized through ad revenue, and ad revenue is based upon the ratings of the shows during which they air. Rush Limbaugh along generates a constant 13.6 million listeners during the course of his 3 hours show. On the other hand, the best ratings I've found for Air America is 1.5 million unique listens over a week. Air America just doesn't generate enough ad revenue to keep it in enough markets, proof being that they had to file for bankruptcy.
Now how does all of this and the fairness doctrine show an attempt to censor conservative talk radio?
Ratings show that liberal talk radio just cannot compete against conservative talk radio. It doesn't get carried, or it gets dismally low ratings. Radio stations that carried shows like Rush's would be required to carry liberal shows (or at least the liberals mentioned) for the same amount of time. Mind you, the Fairness Doctrine applies to stations, not the individuals that produce the shows the stations carry.
Now with the fairness doctrine, a station would almost certainly be forced to carry 3 hours of Air America for every 3 hours of Rush's show in order to make close to the balance required by the act. You won't get Rush letting liberals on his show to defend themselves against his points, so the stations need to adapt as best they can. Here's where the problem comes, since the liberal shows will not draw as much revenue as the conservative ones, it may cost the station enough revenue that they wouldn't be able to operate in the black. Since they're hijacked by the law to reduce their revenue, they either go out of business, or get non-controversial programing that allows them to operate in the black.
Does the war of 1812 ring a bell for you? I'd also wonder if attacking Alaska doesn't count either.