Granted, it doesn't take much practice to get a good enough understanding of your mage that you'll be able to get him to 70. That being said, there are crappy level 70 mages, decent level 70 mages, great level 70 mages, and some shades in between.
I'm not quite sure what this is an argument for or against... does it take skill to be a real cowboy? When Bush got reelected, I kinda lost faith that you *need* skills to become *anything*. Determination seems able to bring you just as far, even in real life. But yeah. It's a bit hard to start argueing that your lasso did in fact hit it's mark if the caddle ain't caught.
Right, so when Mr. Unqualified Nobody at NASA randomly trips over this network cable, and decides, "Hey, I'm gonna plug that into this machine, cause it looks like it would fit", thereby making all af NASA's critical data available on the internet JUST the same minute a chinese script-kiddy is cruising around, hoping to find pictures from Area 52... then, the proper phrase to describe this scenario would be: "China is attacking USA!"
I find it kind of amusing that your illustrative example is actually NOT about stupid customers. Sure, it may show them off as assholes... but an end customer has absolutely no chance in hell at figuring that his connection is down because you need to construct a new house for your DSLAM, and even with all the qualifications in the world and a 210 IQ, he has no chance at fixing the issue himself - and he shouldn't.
Let's distinguish between assholes and retards now, shall we.
I think the major difference is the amount of work that goes into misleading the customer.
The delicious-looking burger on the menu was treated with some extra love and care, placed under good lighting conditions, etc.
The iPhone in the add features hardware not present in the actually commercially available version OR some hidden plug to an actual fiber connection OR it's really just displaying a preloaded video, with a hand pretending to be triggering the functionality we see OR something else that I can't figure out. What's absolutely certain is that you are, in fact, NOT looking at a user surfing the web over wi-fi on his iPhone, and the Apple-people involved in making the commercial were pretty damn aware. The resturant-owner who shafted you with delicious pictures probably has some minor genuine hope that his employees will do a good job on the burger.
So what's so great about 3G?
It's what helps you get the new, really fast.
Find your way. Really fast.
And download pretty much anything. Really fast.
The new iPhone 3G. The internet. You guessed it - really fast
Tell me again you honestly don't think the ad has focus on speed.
I can't help but think it's a little funny that you tell the parent not to jump to conclusions, and then agree with his conclusions anyway;)
Makes sense though, as parent is right. I particularly dislike the following quotes from announcement:
I want to foster this in him, without having him on my desktop or laptop.
Sounds a bit to me like you're eager to leave him to the electric baby-sitters. If you really want to foster his computerskills, I think you'll be doing a bad job by simply equipping him with a piece of hardware and leave him on his own.
Want him to work the computer? Show him how and do it with him... on your pc.
I also don't really like the idea of getting one of those cheap 'Learning Laptops' that have a tiny screen and are really limited.
Well, you're not the one who's gonna be using it. If you start out using YOUR pc WITH your kid, you'll probably find out soon enough that these limitations aren't really gonna affect your sons ability to have fun with it.
If, contrary to anyones expectations, your kid actually starts googleing all the things he don't know after a week, and launches his first Hello World!-app after two weeks, then yeah, he probably IS a prodigy. But in that case, you don't really need a computer designed to withstand the average 2 year old now, do you?
I think anyone with a reasonable amount of experience with gaming and/or programming is fully well aware that loading screens were not invented because the developer thought they looked pretty and wanted to give the player a short break anyway.
That being said, the abscence of a simple solution does not make the problem less relevant. In basically any story-driven game, immersion into the game universe is preferred, and loading screens are definitely having a negative impact on immersion. Yes, hardware has limitations, but whenever we're reminded of that, we're reminded that we're playing a game.
I would think this is exactly the parents point?
"RIAA is history!", "Linux beats Windows!", and "Duke Nuke'em Forever goes gold!" are all lies when used in an attempt to describe past/current events. It would suit the (supposedly smart)/. crowd to stop using such claims over and over again. I suppose you've all heard about the boy who cried wolf...
One thing that should be obvious, in terms of defining "the year of linux on the desktop" should be that there's only one of them. If 2008 is that year, because it's "slowly becoming a viable alternative", then what would you call the hypothetical year where Blizzard and EA decides to write their PC games for Linux instead of Windows? (my own suggestion: "the year after the year of linux on the desktop")
Just like RIAA will only die once (if at all).
In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say most scientists believe consciousness is a physical brain process that has nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.
Well, you don't get to guess, and scientists don't get to believe. That's what raises you above us brainwashed delusional freaks. You have all backed yourself into the corner where you're basically not allowed to express an idea about how the world works, unless you can prove it, cause isn't that exactly what makes us believers so primitive? Unsupported claims of God?
Feel threatened in your religious beliefs much?
The day they do develop a machine with "soul", yes. Untill then, no. Why would I. I'm all for science, cause I believe that if our understanding of science was ever to become good enough that we actually could prove/disprove Gods existance, all you atheists would be in for a surprise. Untill then, science helps us make the most of the brilliant world God created for us.
The explanation for this is simple - if you think America takes the price here, your perception of the rest of the world (or at least Europe) is just as much off as our perception of America.
Well, it all depends. I don't know much about the density of antimatter, and the explosive power depends on mass, not volume. Though, considering how rare antimatter is and how difficult it is to work with, one could very well say that a teaspoon of antimatter is a LOT of antimatter. Everything's relative, y'know. And speaking of relativity, E = mcc is the key to figuring the explosive power, as this describes the mass-to-energy convertion rate.
Let's say there's 5 grams of antimatter in a teaspoon.
E = 0.005 kg * 300000 m/s * 300000 m/s = 1350000000 J = 1.35 GJ
For comparison, the explosive force of one ton of TNT is 4.18 GJ, so yeah - roughly speaking, 15-20 grams of antimatter equals one ton of TNT.
However, I have no clue how much TNT it takes to level a city.
It turns out that an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky isn't exactly the best fit for what we observe.
Indeed you're right. But then again, even fundamentalistic christians don't actually believe in "an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky". As a matter of fact, christianity forbids you to put God into any shape (2nd commandment). So yeah. You wanna bash religion? At least recognize that they have no clue what he's like, and never claimed differently (well, maybe those cults with the golden calfs 'n stuff, but I don't think any of those are still considered major by any standards).
I still fail to see what exactly makes the big bang or the big superstring recycling vastly superior to the divine creation.
I'm assuming everything but the question is sarcastic, and yeah, I agree. The topic is offensive.
She's good at math, sure, but odds are she's probably good at something else, only you didn't see it in writing on a piece of paper from school.
I've heard lots of people say that "talent comes with obligations" - if you're really good at something, you should necessarily make the most of it. I couldn't disagree more.
I'll take the liberty of bragging, since it's relevant - I am something of a multi-talent. Friends and family recognize me as highly intelligent, a jack-of-all-trades, and agree I become good at everything I try out. Does that mean that I *must* become a professional musician, programmer, teacher and journalist, all at once?
A talent is supposed to be a blessing - something that opens doors for you. Not a curse to dictate your future.
Odds are that your daughter has other talent that you haven't noticed. Have you listened to how she sings? Seen how she draws? Tried to let her lead a project? Is she good at football?
First of all, let her do what she wants. Second of all, if you DO wanna guide her, guide her *away* from things your truly think she's bad at (after giving her an honest chance to prove you wrong) - not *towards* the one thing you *know* she's good at, cause she's a human, and there's probably more to her than a math score.
I'll dare make the claim that it's just a matter of human technology not being advanced enough to create such observers. If the abscence of a sufficiently accurate observer defines true randomness, then shuffling a deck of card 4/7/whatever times creates true randomness if no cam is recording the shuffling. Otherwise, true randomness simply don't exist.
There's another dangerous cultist movement going on - the Atheists!
These guys actually claim that God is ruled out by sheer logics. They make mention of a mysterious "big bang", a sudden explosion, that appeared out of nowhere and just happened to create a universe. They believe this explanation to be so accurate and fulfilling, that they view any opposing theory to be a product of delusion.
They claim their religion is backed up by the most basic and unflawed concept, "common sense". They claim to *know* that they're right, and that the presence of anything divine is fundamentally absurd, and anyone who could even consider this a reality should preferably be put in a strap-jacket and be kept away from "normal", "sensible" people.
They will repeatedly point at "religion" (in their optics meaning "any but their own" - as they completely fail to realize God has not been disproven, and they too are just following a belief) as the cause of all evil and the basis of all wars, despite the fact that cruel behaviour can easily be observed in atheists (and even many animals), and that power and wealth are also historically known to be the motivation for many armed conflicts.
I am a man of faith AND a man of science untill they conflict (which hasn't happened yet).
Atheists NEEDS to realize that they too can become fundamentalists, and that if they do, they're just as bad as any other fundamentalistic groups.
Yet you insist that studies which actually asked the buyers are wrong
Did not say, much less insist that.
You didn't? What's this then...
The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.
Once restored Apple cannot tell if it was ever Jailbroken or not.
Just to be clear though... since you consider it a lie that jailbreaking voids warranty, I suppose that you agree that the quote is actually a waste of space? Cause you're suggesting that Apple are fine with you having jailbreaked your iPhone... if it's a matter of Apple being UNABLE to tell it was jailbreaked, and not Apple NOT CARING it was jailbreaked then you're contradicting yourself (either that, or you're back at "It ain't a crime if you don't get caught")
The wiki page on Natural Rights says:
"Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all rights are legal rights"
Now, of course, we all know that Wikipedia doesn't exactly hold the stonecarved truth, but this one seems like a pretty clear case. Since it's "centuries old", it was conceived at a much different point in time than, say, Big Bang, Earth, life on Earth or even the dawn of humanity really, which basically moves it from the realm of "natural" to the realm of "cultural, man-made".
Parent didn't say he don't know what natural rights are about or that he don't respect them, but that he don't consider them natural. Technically speaking, I don't see how anyone could disagree with him really.
The only truly natural right is the right to attempt to secure your own survival.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, you're right... but these are not random factors.
Better physics! Less random factors! FTW!
Granted, it doesn't take much practice to get a good enough understanding of your mage that you'll be able to get him to 70. That being said, there are crappy level 70 mages, decent level 70 mages, great level 70 mages, and some shades in between.
I'm not quite sure what this is an argument for or against... does it take skill to be a real cowboy? When Bush got reelected, I kinda lost faith that you *need* skills to become *anything*. Determination seems able to bring you just as far, even in real life. But yeah. It's a bit hard to start argueing that your lasso did in fact hit it's mark if the caddle ain't caught.
Right, so when Mr. Unqualified Nobody at NASA randomly trips over this network cable, and decides, "Hey, I'm gonna plug that into this machine, cause it looks like it would fit", thereby making all af NASA's critical data available on the internet JUST the same minute a chinese script-kiddy is cruising around, hoping to find pictures from Area 52... then, the proper phrase to describe this scenario would be: "China is attacking USA!"
Riiiiiight.
I find it kind of amusing that your illustrative example is actually NOT about stupid customers. Sure, it may show them off as assholes... but an end customer has absolutely no chance in hell at figuring that his connection is down because you need to construct a new house for your DSLAM, and even with all the qualifications in the world and a 210 IQ, he has no chance at fixing the issue himself - and he shouldn't.
Let's distinguish between assholes and retards now, shall we.
I think the major difference is the amount of work that goes into misleading the customer.
The delicious-looking burger on the menu was treated with some extra love and care, placed under good lighting conditions, etc.
The iPhone in the add features hardware not present in the actually commercially available version OR some hidden plug to an actual fiber connection OR it's really just displaying a preloaded video, with a hand pretending to be triggering the functionality we see OR something else that I can't figure out. What's absolutely certain is that you are, in fact, NOT looking at a user surfing the web over wi-fi on his iPhone, and the Apple-people involved in making the commercial were pretty damn aware.
The resturant-owner who shafted you with delicious pictures probably has some minor genuine hope that his employees will do a good job on the burger.
Did you have sounds on? Here's a transcript...
So what's so great about 3G?
It's what helps you get the new, really fast.
Find your way. Really fast.
And download pretty much anything. Really fast.
The new iPhone 3G. The internet. You guessed it - really fast
Tell me again you honestly don't think the ad has focus on speed.
Makes sense though, as parent is right. I particularly dislike the following quotes from announcement:
I want to foster this in him, without having him on my desktop or laptop.
Sounds a bit to me like you're eager to leave him to the electric baby-sitters. If you really want to foster his computerskills, I think you'll be doing a bad job by simply equipping him with a piece of hardware and leave him on his own.
Want him to work the computer? Show him how and do it with him... on your pc.
I also don't really like the idea of getting one of those cheap 'Learning Laptops' that have a tiny screen and are really limited.
Well, you're not the one who's gonna be using it. If you start out using YOUR pc WITH your kid, you'll probably find out soon enough that these limitations aren't really gonna affect your sons ability to have fun with it.
If, contrary to anyones expectations, your kid actually starts googleing all the things he don't know after a week, and launches his first Hello World!-app after two weeks, then yeah, he probably IS a prodigy. But in that case, you don't really need a computer designed to withstand the average 2 year old now, do you?
... and is it really healthy for a bunch of coders to start on their own, when they think the big issue is the quality of the code?
Overhyped by sales drones? Well, even if you don't, at least your colleagues believe in your product.
I think anyone with a reasonable amount of experience with gaming and/or programming is fully well aware that loading screens were not invented because the developer thought they looked pretty and wanted to give the player a short break anyway.
That being said, the abscence of a simple solution does not make the problem less relevant. In basically any story-driven game, immersion into the game universe is preferred, and loading screens are definitely having a negative impact on immersion. Yes, hardware has limitations, but whenever we're reminded of that, we're reminded that we're playing a game.
I would think this is exactly the parents point? /. crowd to stop using such claims over and over again. I suppose you've all heard about the boy who cried wolf...
"RIAA is history!", "Linux beats Windows!", and "Duke Nuke'em Forever goes gold!" are all lies when used in an attempt to describe past/current events. It would suit the (supposedly smart)
One thing that should be obvious, in terms of defining "the year of linux on the desktop" should be that there's only one of them. If 2008 is that year, because it's "slowly becoming a viable alternative", then what would you call the hypothetical year where Blizzard and EA decides to write their PC games for Linux instead of Windows? (my own suggestion: "the year after the year of linux on the desktop")
Just like RIAA will only die once (if at all).
In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say most scientists believe consciousness is a physical brain process that has nothing to do with metaphysics or religion.
Well, you don't get to guess, and scientists don't get to believe. That's what raises you above us brainwashed delusional freaks.
You have all backed yourself into the corner where you're basically not allowed to express an idea about how the world works, unless you can prove it, cause isn't that exactly what makes us believers so primitive? Unsupported claims of God?
Feel threatened in your religious beliefs much?
The day they do develop a machine with "soul", yes. Untill then, no. Why would I. I'm all for science, cause I believe that if our understanding of science was ever to become good enough that we actually could prove/disprove Gods existance, all you atheists would be in for a surprise. Untill then, science helps us make the most of the brilliant world God created for us.
You're a very clever troll, but I'll bite...
I think you were gently licking at best.
It is horrifying to me that you left out porn...
The explanation for this is simple - if you think America takes the price here, your perception of the rest of the world (or at least Europe) is just as much off as our perception of America.
Well, it all depends. I don't know much about the density of antimatter, and the explosive power depends on mass, not volume. Though, considering how rare antimatter is and how difficult it is to work with, one could very well say that a teaspoon of antimatter is a LOT of antimatter. Everything's relative, y'know. And speaking of relativity, E = mcc is the key to figuring the explosive power, as this describes the mass-to-energy convertion rate.
Let's say there's 5 grams of antimatter in a teaspoon.
E = 0.005 kg * 300000 m/s * 300000 m/s = 1350000000 J = 1.35 GJ
For comparison, the explosive force of one ton of TNT is 4.18 GJ, so yeah - roughly speaking, 15-20 grams of antimatter equals one ton of TNT.
However, I have no clue how much TNT it takes to level a city.
It turns out that an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky isn't exactly the best fit for what we observe.
Indeed you're right. But then again, even fundamentalistic christians don't actually believe in "an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky". As a matter of fact, christianity forbids you to put God into any shape (2nd commandment). So yeah. You wanna bash religion? At least recognize that they have no clue what he's like, and never claimed differently (well, maybe those cults with the golden calfs 'n stuff, but I don't think any of those are still considered major by any standards).
I still fail to see what exactly makes the big bang or the big superstring recycling vastly superior to the divine creation.
I'm assuming everything but the question is sarcastic, and yeah, I agree. The topic is offensive.
She's good at math, sure, but odds are she's probably good at something else, only you didn't see it in writing on a piece of paper from school.
I've heard lots of people say that "talent comes with obligations" - if you're really good at something, you should necessarily make the most of it. I couldn't disagree more.
I'll take the liberty of bragging, since it's relevant - I am something of a multi-talent. Friends and family recognize me as highly intelligent, a jack-of-all-trades, and agree I become good at everything I try out. Does that mean that I *must* become a professional musician, programmer, teacher and journalist, all at once?
A talent is supposed to be a blessing - something that opens doors for you. Not a curse to dictate your future.
Odds are that your daughter has other talent that you haven't noticed. Have you listened to how she sings? Seen how she draws? Tried to let her lead a project? Is she good at football?
First of all, let her do what she wants. Second of all, if you DO wanna guide her, guide her *away* from things your truly think she's bad at (after giving her an honest chance to prove you wrong) - not *towards* the one thing you *know* she's good at, cause she's a human, and there's probably more to her than a math score.
there are no such observers for radioactive decay
I'll dare make the claim that it's just a matter of human technology not being advanced enough to create such observers. If the abscence of a sufficiently accurate observer defines true randomness, then shuffling a deck of card 4/7/whatever times creates true randomness if no cam is recording the shuffling. Otherwise, true randomness simply don't exist.
There's another dangerous cultist movement going on - the Atheists!
These guys actually claim that God is ruled out by sheer logics. They make mention of a mysterious "big bang", a sudden explosion, that appeared out of nowhere and just happened to create a universe. They believe this explanation to be so accurate and fulfilling, that they view any opposing theory to be a product of delusion.
They claim their religion is backed up by the most basic and unflawed concept, "common sense". They claim to *know* that they're right, and that the presence of anything divine is fundamentally absurd, and anyone who could even consider this a reality should preferably be put in a strap-jacket and be kept away from "normal", "sensible" people.
They will repeatedly point at "religion" (in their optics meaning "any but their own" - as they completely fail to realize God has not been disproven, and they too are just following a belief) as the cause of all evil and the basis of all wars, despite the fact that cruel behaviour can easily be observed in atheists (and even many animals), and that power and wealth are also historically known to be the motivation for many armed conflicts.
I am a man of faith AND a man of science untill they conflict (which hasn't happened yet).
Atheists NEEDS to realize that they too can become fundamentalists, and that if they do, they're just as bad as any other fundamentalistic groups.
Actually, it IS true. Once you find the correct charater, you stop trying anymore, so your succes was "at the very end" of your circumvention hazzle.
After decades of research, the US Army has unfortunately learned that if you allow people to communicate, they might use this to plan terror.
This comes as a complete shock, and they're now looking into means of shutting down all forms of communication altogether.
This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.
I'm still looking for the ACTUAL findings, instead of this glorified summary
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I personally like the last quote the best ;)
And people who thinks like you do need to stop thinking about gaming as a religion, and start thinking about it as a passtime.
Yet you insist that studies which actually asked the buyers are wrong
Did not say, much less insist that.
You didn't? What's this then...
The majority of console/computer/card/board gamers are people under 30. This is not even worth refuting as you can simply ask any retail worker in any store. Anywhere.
Once restored Apple cannot tell if it was ever Jailbroken or not.
Just to be clear though... since you consider it a lie that jailbreaking voids warranty, I suppose that you agree that the quote is actually a waste of space? Cause you're suggesting that Apple are fine with you having jailbreaked your iPhone... if it's a matter of Apple being UNABLE to tell it was jailbreaked, and not Apple NOT CARING it was jailbreaked then you're contradicting yourself (either that, or you're back at "It ain't a crime if you don't get caught")
The wiki page on Natural Rights says:
"Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all rights are legal rights"
Now, of course, we all know that Wikipedia doesn't exactly hold the stonecarved truth, but this one seems like a pretty clear case. Since it's "centuries old", it was conceived at a much different point in time than, say, Big Bang, Earth, life on Earth or even the dawn of humanity really, which basically moves it from the realm of "natural" to the realm of "cultural, man-made".
Parent didn't say he don't know what natural rights are about or that he don't respect them, but that he don't consider them natural. Technically speaking, I don't see how anyone could disagree with him really.
The only truly natural right is the right to attempt to secure your own survival.
Or is it this weird anti-US propaganda that people in other countries are subjected to?
Yeah, sorta. But then again, how is that much different from:
[...] frankly, I don't trust most of the rest of the world to do a better job than we have
Except, of course, that when something like this happens, we actually can say "Look, you messed it up!". You don't have that luxury (yet?)