Hey all, the current poll available on mybytes is:
How many times should you be allowed to burn a copy of a CD that you purchased? Zero One or two Three to seven As many as I like; I own it. I think you know what to do...
I can't say I agree with the determination of teachers as "non-essential" but being essential doesn't stop anyone, just discourages them. If they strike, they face hefty fines for each day of the strike.
Reminds me of that Mitch Hedberg quote:
My friend said to me, he said "I think the weather is trippy" and I said "No man, it's not the weather that's trippy. Perhaps it is the way we perceive it that is indeed trippy." Then I thought man, I should have just said "Yeah."
I'm not denigrating it, nor do I think we should halt it for all time. I simply think a little break might give people pause. Especially with music, certain forms of art are being created at such a prodigious rate that it's impossible to keep your signal-to-noise ratio up. There aren't any more Jimi Hendrix's, instead we've got two dozen 50 Cent's. There was plenty of crap made at any given time, but it's worth everyone's time and sanity to wait another six months or a year before releasing another album to make some really quality product.
Absolutely, and those people deserved to be paid more than they were (although, in fairness, both groups get amazing benefits from the city) but that doesn't make it "good." There's a reason why it's illegal for them, or teachers, to strike - they're so integral to the functioning of the society (and in the case of the WFC, the global economy) that we simply cannot function without them. That power has thankfully not been used to extremes yet, but there's no reason it wouldn't. Especially in the case of those in Hollywood, I simply do not trust SWG/SAG/DGA to always be so beneficent with their choke-hold over American interests and thinking. If the writers demanded double what they were, and one if not both of the other guilds decided they wanted the same, there'd be nothing produced here. There'd be such pressure from corporations and the public to get it over with that the guilds could probably get their demands met.
Honestly, not having any new music for a while wouldn't be such a bad thing. People wouldn't be able to just latch on to the next cookie-cutter artist out of the box, and would instead have to explore their tastes and find something that they can actually listen to for more than three months worth of binge drinking.
I see it as much less than the triumph of organized labor. The masses can always take over the executives if need be, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Living in NYC, I think of the times when the garbage men and subway operators basically held the city for ransom while striking.
Rather, it's an admission of the changing environment the arts operate in. It's indicative of a realization of executives that the current technological climate is radically different than it was even a decade ago, and the business model needs to change accordingly. This is a triumph for internet transactions and dissemination of artistic works.
It sent a goddamned message to the public. The fact that this was such a big deal for so many people was absurd; less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV. My only regret is that it's over in time for the Academy Awards. I think not having that ceremony would've sent a strong message to people about silly and over-hyped this whole culture is.
I think you're mixing yourself up. Yes, scientists do intelligent design all the time, but Intelligent Design, with all caps, is a specific train of thought. It doesn't apply to anything humans do, it applies to some other-worldy being/thing cultivating life as we know it.
In this "God-less ID" theory of yours, what is the "other thing" that is creating life akin to the way scientists do? It wasn't evolution, according to that theory, and it wasn't man, so it must've been something else, some other designer.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of religion. I think it doesn't belong but it certainly can be made to fit. The "Why" in these questions refers to the fact evolution has no purpose, it has no ultimate goal. It is a methodical process that happens. If you ask "Why humans have two arms" the answer is really the answer to "How did humans get two arms" - they way you're asking it, it's the same question. If religion can say to what purpose something was created, and evolution says why, then it works out.
I don't mind waiting for Spore; to be honest, we should be forced to wait more for games, or really any product. As far as I see it, every day we wait, the game becomes slightly better. Yeah, they could probably rush it out by May or June but who cares? It'd be a much sleeker, smoother product by September. I'm more than willing to sit back and wait for something awesome if it's actually going to be awesome. Rushing never helped anything.
Oh, and FYI, this doesn't mean DNF will be the best game ever.
Intelligent Design is Creationism, but not all Creationism is Intelligent Design. As you pointed out, there is a very strong place for religion and God's work within evolution, seeing as evolution explains the how not why; SimHacker's logic was simply flawed.
I always play the ones that make me shoot 20 targets. I take a little FPS break from what I'm doing to shoot 19, then get back to whatever I was up to before.
Ahhh, another dork who doesn't seem to know what the words FORWARD THINKING mean.
If you'd read the books, you'd know that while it is all fiction, those series are one of the few books out these days that had serious science done in them. Robinson was a fantastic writer, and very little was far from fact in that book. Terraforming a planet will in a number of ways be asier than changing our because we'd have a clean slate. Initial challenges aside, once we get the process going we can set up a runaway series of "reactions" to get the planet how we'd like it to be. On Earth, we're faced with the fact that the entire planet is alive and resisting nearly any change we put into it. We also have to account for the fact that we can't do anything radical because we're trying to keep everything currently alive still alive.
Nothing needs to change in even my great-grand children's lives, but a long process needs to start somewhere, and it's with parent's thinking.
Well, ignoring your liberal use of Godwin's Law...
Science comes into this debate in many ways. The most obvious is that scientific advances in medicine are responsible for abortion. Without science, there'd be no such thing as abortion, excepting the horrific back-alley coat-hanger stories. Science is responsible not only for allowing a woman to decide whether or not to carry the fetus to term, but also for allowing her to make that decision without fear of extreme bodily damage. Science is the reason the debate exists, without it there'd be no options, no pro-life/pro-choice stances, and no legal matters.
Science is also responsible for determining when abortion is acceptable. I'm going to assume based upon your analysis of the abortion industry that you are pro-life, but for those of us who do not believe life begins at conception, the distinction between when a clump of cells becomes a beating, breathing life is an important piece of information that only scientific methods can answer. Advances in the sciences are also responsible for the ability of prospective parents to view their fetus, which I suppose could be used to sway a couple to either side.
The thing is, nobody thinks about this. People make their decision based on convictions and ignorant vitriol, and that's fine, but they don't consider the other consequences. Any research done in any biomedical field will kickback to a number of other arenas, OB/GYN being one of those.
His speech is fantastic, and believe I'll be giving him my vote, despite his military proposals and in large part due to his energy and tech stuff (McCain and Clinton are dead to me for their video game stuff,) but listening to him talk is empty. It sounds nice, and he's in the right direction, but he needs to get more "I'll change things" under his belt to get anyone's vote, geek or not. I don't think things are about issues at the moment, but who looks/sounds nicest; if it were based on thought out policies, it'd probably be Clinton's game.
Except, like almost everything he says, it's empty and has nothing behind it. What does "reform" mean? I get it, he wants change, but what does that entail, what does he want? Saying you want to "change something" without saying how is pointless.
Clinton wants
Speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle That sounds pretty geeky!
Too bad Kucinich is out, he supported
Kucinich has proposed several technical initiatives in the areas of renewable energy, pollution control, and open source software and media. Maybe he's got a/. account?
Actually, both Richardson (D) and Thompson (R) seem to be the geekiest, they both want to spur kids to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math! Richardson even had numbers to back his proposal up!
I've been part of their mailing list for a while, and now that some major groups have joined the effort, it's good to see it finally getting some press. Hopefully this will explode, it's just too bad it didn't come to head early enough for most of the primaries.
Whether anyone wants to admit or realize it, scientific issues are exceptionally at the heart of most of the current debates. The article points out some cases, such as the "evidence" for Iraq, that would never have passed a scientific board of inquisitors. Stem cells and evolution are the obvious, but science plays a major role in the abortion and gay rights debate (assuming people think instead of react). Threats of terrorist attacks and various influenza worries are right alongside global warming and environmental concerns as being hugely public issues that basically come down to scientific discussion and knowledge. That some people have the gall to dispute all of evolution or climate change is a sign of a serious and, IMO, disgusting ignorance on the part of the American population. Scientific innovation is also at the heart almost everything we care about: social issues, healthcare, military innovation, prevention of disease, education - it's about time we got our public interested.
Then again, as the SD08 guys point out, we need the leaders to acknowledge this as well. I need only point to xkcd to make the point.
I'd agree. The majority of these things paints males as much closer to barbaric creatures. I see this (horribly insufficient) study and think "Wow, men are more likely to be able to relax and enjoy themselves, show an increased desire to deal with their mental issues responsibly, and have much higher coordination skills!" With the exception of perhaps reading, music, and exercise, there are few "addictions" that are as good for the mind as some video gaming can be - there's no reason to paint us as villains for enjoying the medium.
The flip side, of course, is that anything with a tone suggesting women might not in some way be equivalent to men is treated as a crime against all of humanity. When the president of Harvard suggested during a scientific discussion that it was theoretically possible for men to be simply more pre-disposed to mathematics than women, a huge public outcry was heard and he was forced to resign. He basically said "it could possible for the brains of males and females to potentially be different, I wonder if there's evidence for or against that." This article said "men and women's brains behave differently." The only difference is that in the first example, men came out ahead and in the second women were perceived "winners."
On the other hand, this study just means everyone should stop complaining when they say video games are aimed at men.
Still less likely - You know EXACTLY which route it's going to take, and can build in controls to your "Command Center." A plane in the air is all on its own while a train is bound by a number of things, least of all tracks. At the very least you could intercept it with another large object, not to mention any other mechanism built into the train/track for such an event.
It's not perfect, nor fool-proof, but it's far safer. At least you can't fall 30,000 feet.
According to a recent study, parents are becoming increasingly negligent when it comes to raising their children. The study found that over one-third (38%) of children had been allowed to meet with a stranger they met on the internet. Parental standards have been falling for years, but this recent study gives insight as to the increasing threat of a lack of parental oversight.
In an unrelated study, scientists found that approximately 40% of people aged 9-18 years old should be "destroyed for the good of mankind."
Slashdot Mirror
Zero
One or two
Three to seven
As many as I like; I own it. I think you know what to do...
It's all just a simple case of RAS Syndrome.
I can't say I agree with the determination of teachers as "non-essential" but being essential doesn't stop anyone, just discourages them. If they strike, they face hefty fines for each day of the strike.
I'm not denigrating it, nor do I think we should halt it for all time. I simply think a little break might give people pause. Especially with music, certain forms of art are being created at such a prodigious rate that it's impossible to keep your signal-to-noise ratio up. There aren't any more Jimi Hendrix's, instead we've got two dozen 50 Cent's. There was plenty of crap made at any given time, but it's worth everyone's time and sanity to wait another six months or a year before releasing another album to make some really quality product.
Sadly, Bourdain does not cultivate the massive audience that shows like Lost do.
Absolutely, and those people deserved to be paid more than they were (although, in fairness, both groups get amazing benefits from the city) but that doesn't make it "good." There's a reason why it's illegal for them, or teachers, to strike - they're so integral to the functioning of the society (and in the case of the WFC, the global economy) that we simply cannot function without them. That power has thankfully not been used to extremes yet, but there's no reason it wouldn't. Especially in the case of those in Hollywood, I simply do not trust SWG/SAG/DGA to always be so beneficent with their choke-hold over American interests and thinking. If the writers demanded double what they were, and one if not both of the other guilds decided they wanted the same, there'd be nothing produced here. There'd be such pressure from corporations and the public to get it over with that the guilds could probably get their demands met.
Honestly, not having any new music for a while wouldn't be such a bad thing. People wouldn't be able to just latch on to the next cookie-cutter artist out of the box, and would instead have to explore their tastes and find something that they can actually listen to for more than three months worth of binge drinking.
I see it as much less than the triumph of organized labor. The masses can always take over the executives if need be, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Living in NYC, I think of the times when the garbage men and subway operators basically held the city for ransom while striking.
Rather, it's an admission of the changing environment the arts operate in. It's indicative of a realization of executives that the current technological climate is radically different than it was even a decade ago, and the business model needs to change accordingly. This is a triumph for internet transactions and dissemination of artistic works.
Honestly, I cared. I really cared. Why?
It sent a goddamned message to the public. The fact that this was such a big deal for so many people was absurd; less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV. My only regret is that it's over in time for the Academy Awards. I think not having that ceremony would've sent a strong message to people about silly and over-hyped this whole culture is.
I think you're mixing yourself up. Yes, scientists do intelligent design all the time, but Intelligent Design, with all caps, is a specific train of thought. It doesn't apply to anything humans do, it applies to some other-worldy being/thing cultivating life as we know it.
In this "God-less ID" theory of yours, what is the "other thing" that is creating life akin to the way scientists do? It wasn't evolution, according to that theory, and it wasn't man, so it must've been something else, some other designer.
I'd call that architect "God."
I dunno about you, but I'd much rather know my purpose in life than how I evolved a four-chambered heart!
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of religion. I think it doesn't belong but it certainly can be made to fit. The "Why" in these questions refers to the fact evolution has no purpose, it has no ultimate goal. It is a methodical process that happens. If you ask "Why humans have two arms" the answer is really the answer to "How did humans get two arms" - they way you're asking it, it's the same question. If religion can say to what purpose something was created, and evolution says why, then it works out.
I don't mind waiting for Spore; to be honest, we should be forced to wait more for games, or really any product. As far as I see it, every day we wait, the game becomes slightly better. Yeah, they could probably rush it out by May or June but who cares? It'd be a much sleeker, smoother product by September. I'm more than willing to sit back and wait for something awesome if it's actually going to be awesome. Rushing never helped anything.
Oh, and FYI, this doesn't mean DNF will be the best game ever.
Intelligent Design is Creationism, but not all Creationism is Intelligent Design. As you pointed out, there is a very strong place for religion and God's work within evolution, seeing as evolution explains the how not why; SimHacker's logic was simply flawed.
I always play the ones that make me shoot 20 targets. I take a little FPS break from what I'm doing to shoot 19, then get back to whatever I was up to before.
Ahhh, another dork who doesn't seem to know what the words FORWARD THINKING mean.
If you'd read the books, you'd know that while it is all fiction, those series are one of the few books out these days that had serious science done in them. Robinson was a fantastic writer, and very little was far from fact in that book. Terraforming a planet will in a number of ways be asier than changing our because we'd have a clean slate. Initial challenges aside, once we get the process going we can set up a runaway series of "reactions" to get the planet how we'd like it to be. On Earth, we're faced with the fact that the entire planet is alive and resisting nearly any change we put into it. We also have to account for the fact that we can't do anything radical because we're trying to keep everything currently alive still alive.
Nothing needs to change in even my great-grand children's lives, but a long process needs to start somewhere, and it's with parent's thinking.
Well, ignoring your liberal use of Godwin's Law...
Science comes into this debate in many ways. The most obvious is that scientific advances in medicine are responsible for abortion. Without science, there'd be no such thing as abortion, excepting the horrific back-alley coat-hanger stories. Science is responsible not only for allowing a woman to decide whether or not to carry the fetus to term, but also for allowing her to make that decision without fear of extreme bodily damage. Science is the reason the debate exists, without it there'd be no options, no pro-life/pro-choice stances, and no legal matters.
Science is also responsible for determining when abortion is acceptable. I'm going to assume based upon your analysis of the abortion industry that you are pro-life, but for those of us who do not believe life begins at conception, the distinction between when a clump of cells becomes a beating, breathing life is an important piece of information that only scientific methods can answer. Advances in the sciences are also responsible for the ability of prospective parents to view their fetus, which I suppose could be used to sway a couple to either side.
The thing is, nobody thinks about this. People make their decision based on convictions and ignorant vitriol, and that's fine, but they don't consider the other consequences. Any research done in any biomedical field will kickback to a number of other arenas, OB/GYN being one of those.
His speech is fantastic, and believe I'll be giving him my vote, despite his military proposals and in large part due to his energy and tech stuff (McCain and Clinton are dead to me for their video game stuff,) but listening to him talk is empty. It sounds nice, and he's in the right direction, but he needs to get more "I'll change things" under his belt to get anyone's vote, geek or not. I don't think things are about issues at the moment, but who looks/sounds nicest; if it were based on thought out policies, it'd probably be Clinton's game.
Clinton wants Speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle That sounds pretty geeky!
Too bad Kucinich is out, he supported Kucinich has proposed several technical initiatives in the areas of renewable energy, pollution control, and open source software and media. Maybe he's got a
Actually, both Richardson (D) and Thompson (R) seem to be the geekiest, they both want to spur kids to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math! Richardson even had numbers to back his proposal up!
I've been part of their mailing list for a while, and now that some major groups have joined the effort, it's good to see it finally getting some press. Hopefully this will explode, it's just too bad it didn't come to head early enough for most of the primaries.
Whether anyone wants to admit or realize it, scientific issues are exceptionally at the heart of most of the current debates. The article points out some cases, such as the "evidence" for Iraq, that would never have passed a scientific board of inquisitors. Stem cells and evolution are the obvious, but science plays a major role in the abortion and gay rights debate (assuming people think instead of react). Threats of terrorist attacks and various influenza worries are right alongside global warming and environmental concerns as being hugely public issues that basically come down to scientific discussion and knowledge. That some people have the gall to dispute all of evolution or climate change is a sign of a serious and, IMO, disgusting ignorance on the part of the American population. Scientific innovation is also at the heart almost everything we care about: social issues, healthcare, military innovation, prevention of disease, education - it's about time we got our public interested.
Then again, as the SD08 guys point out, we need the leaders to acknowledge this as well. I need only point to xkcd to make the point.
I'd agree. The majority of these things paints males as much closer to barbaric creatures. I see this (horribly insufficient) study and think "Wow, men are more likely to be able to relax and enjoy themselves, show an increased desire to deal with their mental issues responsibly, and have much higher coordination skills!" With the exception of perhaps reading, music, and exercise, there are few "addictions" that are as good for the mind as some video gaming can be - there's no reason to paint us as villains for enjoying the medium.
The flip side, of course, is that anything with a tone suggesting women might not in some way be equivalent to men is treated as a crime against all of humanity. When the president of Harvard suggested during a scientific discussion that it was theoretically possible for men to be simply more pre-disposed to mathematics than women, a huge public outcry was heard and he was forced to resign. He basically said "it could possible for the brains of males and females to potentially be different, I wonder if there's evidence for or against that." This article said "men and women's brains behave differently." The only difference is that in the first example, men came out ahead and in the second women were perceived "winners."
On the other hand, this study just means everyone should stop complaining when they say video games are aimed at men.
Well, unless you loop it into a circle (which would be a pretty bad-ass solution, IMO) it's still gotta end up somewhere.
Still less likely - You know EXACTLY which route it's going to take, and can build in controls to your "Command Center." A plane in the air is all on its own while a train is bound by a number of things, least of all tracks. At the very least you could intercept it with another large object, not to mention any other mechanism built into the train/track for such an event.
It's not perfect, nor fool-proof, but it's far safer. At least you can't fall 30,000 feet.
According to a recent study, parents are becoming increasingly negligent when it comes to raising their children. The study found that over one-third (38%) of children had been allowed to meet with a stranger they met on the internet. Parental standards have been falling for years, but this recent study gives insight as to the increasing threat of a lack of parental oversight.
In an unrelated study, scientists found that approximately 40% of people aged 9-18 years old should be "destroyed for the good of mankind."