not so fast...that 'safety' they measure has very rapidly decreasing marginal utility...after awhile a.0000000000000001% gain in 'safety' is not work the extra 20 minutes to your commute b/c the Google control software won't let your car ever get any closer than 2 car lengths...so turning left on that busy intersection takes 3x as long in the morning....
When was the last time you took a driving class? They recommend you keep at least 4 seconds between you and the car in front of you as the minimum safe distance you need to stop if an emergency happens.
If you're regularly driving with less than 2 seconds between you and the car in front of you, congratulations, you're part of the problem that automated cars are trying to solve, and I can't wait until you're no longer behind the wheel on a highway.
This is kind of hilarious. I'm tempted to accuse you of being a Sony shill, but I think you just don't know what you're talking about, since apparently you think the Wii U is called either a "new WII", "Wii Mii", or "wii/mii".
But to quickly refute all of your complaints: 1) The Wii and Wii U are cheaper than all of their contemporary competitors. 2) There are a fuckton of great Wii games, and you are blind. Try anything published by Nintendo -- Super Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, etc. -- or for third-party games, Monster Hunter, Xenoblade, Pandora's Tower, The Last Story, etc... The Wii U's library is a bit more anemic so far, but Wind Waker HD and Wonderful 101 are pretty fantastic, and it won't be long until Super Mario 3D World and Bayonetta 2 are out. There's also a Call of Duty game if that's more your kind of thing. Consoles don't usually have a lot of blockbusters when they're first released. Remember back when the PS3 had no exclusives and the 360 had nothing but sports games? Maybe being an early adopter just isn't for you? 3) I'm sorry that you're terrified of social networking and decided to half-ass connecting your system to the internet, and now you're annoyed that it's trying to get you to finish the process. Not sure what else to say about that. If you really believe Nintendo is going to give your e-mail address to spambots, just make a throwaway gmail address or something. 4) The Wii and Wii U are both gaming consoles, not video streaming platforms, and if you have complaints with third-party video apps, complain to the third parties, not Nintendo. 5) Good luck finding a set top box, or tablet that is cheaper than a Wii and has a comparable game library.
And really...
IMO Nintendo is on its last legs.
Yes, they're struggling to survive after just barely selling 4 million Pokemon games in its opening week.
Then there were the blue laws, where you could go to the store on Sunday but not buy certain things.
Some of those laws are gone, but some of them are still around. Grocery stores can't sell liquor, and they can't sell any alcohol before noon on Sunday. That really confused a friend of mine the first time he needed to get some cooking sherry on a Sunday morning.
Remember, the Republican party is pro-business! Unless your business is doing something they find morally objectionable.
I'm not following your logic here. What makes you think that parents who are well below average in all of those categories will be able to -- or even be inclined to -- teach their children to above-average standards?
Oh, sorry, you said I'm not allow to complain about that, so I can't. Yes, let's go back to the days of parents just teaching their children whatever they felt like, because America was a bastion of intelligence back during the pioneer days.
To be fair, as the CEO of a company, he has a pretty big influence over a lot of peoples' jobs. If he refuses to hire a certain class of people, that's a pretty big deal for any potential job-seekers in his company's area.
Why? Because a heterosexual "COUPLE", by definition has a man and a woman so the child will be exposed to both male and female role models in the home.
The issue here isn't heterosexual couples adopting vs. homosexual couples adopting. It's homosexual couples adopting vs. not being adopted at all. I don't know if you've ever looked at the state of orphanages or adoption agencies, but they are packed with kids that are not being adopted. Do you believe it's better for a child to live in an orphanage until they're too old to keep or to be constantly passed between foster families than it is to be adopted by a gay couple?
It is generally accepted that the most well adjusted children come from a loving family where there is a mother and a father in the home. Children from single mother or single father families tend to have some issues. For example, a girl who is raised by a single father will not have a female to model herself after and visa versa.
"Generally accepted"? Please show me some studies and provide citations.
I'm sorry if you are offended by "science" and "facts".
I love science and facts, but all I see from you is conjecture.
What are you trying to tell us here? Do you resent your parents for having you? What is up with your antagonism towards heterosexuals? Why do you hate them so much? Why do you hate the traditional family? Have you considered seeking out a therapist to work out your issues? Were you from a single parent home?
You're stuffing words into my mouth again. What I am trying to tell you here is that I'm making a counter-argument to the original poster's argument, which you seem to have completely forgotten about. I'm from a "traditional" two-parent home and have no problems with them. I don't have any problem with heterosexuals (I am one, by the way!), just bigots.
What is bad for society is your insistence on silencing those who think differently. That is what the nazis tried to do.
No, the Nazis tried to commit genocide. The fact that you would think that is even comparable to disagreeing with somebody on a public forum makes your entire argument laughable. Come back and try again when the original poster has attempted to murder you and everybody who is related to you.
WTF? Do you see children as chattel? Do you think children should be bought and sold to anyone with the money to pay? You can be as gay as you want to be but don't assume that anyone has an absolute right to adopt and raise a child.
The child should be placed the the best environment possible for the "CHILD". Their needs must come first, not yours.
Stop treating children like property.
Wow, you sure are putting a lot of words into my mouth. I never said any of those things, so stop acting like I did.
The original poster I replied to was justifying the opposite of adoption by gay couples by saying that since the children have no choice in the matter, it's wrong. If the thing that he really objects to here is the children having no choice, then why is it ok for heterosexual couples to adopt? Why is it ok for them to give birth to children who have no choice about it, for that matter?
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate. A culture based around sustaining enough population to maintain itself through immigration is a) parasitic, b) evil and c) fundamentally self destructive.
The social contract where you get to relax and let the young people take care of things when you're old and tired relies on everyone paying into the system. Not with money. With babies. Nothing else will do, there's nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.
Hahahah. Wow. Seriously, this is hilarious. I would think you're a troll, but you seem so level-headed about it, and you sound a lot like some Objectivists I've talked to.
Homosexuals don't "reject procreation" at all. They are attracted to members of the same sex. That's it. They don't "reject procreation" any more than heterosexual couples that use birth control. Gay men and lesbian women are still perfectly fertile and capable of having children -- and sometimes they do! Sometimes they also like to adopt and care for orphaned children. I don't know if you've looked at an orphanage or adoption agency recently, but there is no shortage of children whose parents either could not or would not take care of them. Do you feel the same way about heterosexual couples who don't have more than two children? They're not doing their job to overpopulate the world!
It seems like you think being homosexual is some kind of choice. There's no such thing as "promoting" it. People don't suddenly decide that being gay is cool and switch who they're attracted to. The only thing that not being prejudiced against gay people will do is make people who are already gay happier. The only consequence of people "embracing" their homosexuality is that they won't hate themselves because of people telling them they're evil.
But for that matter, cannibalism isn't really deviancy; you don't have to indulge in it, just don't discriminate against it; and you can call anybody anything you want thanks to free speech.
Except, of course, that homosexuality involves loving relationships between people of the same gender, and cannibalism involves murder, so they're not really comparable at all.
Anything that differs from the norm IS a deviancy!
In a statistical sense this is true, but in a social sense, something is "deviant" if it differs from what society in general considers acceptable. The only people who consider homosexuality unacceptable nowadays (within the USA, at least) are the extreme right-wing, fundamentalist Christians.
Well, you're right that "phobia" isn't really the best term. They're not scared, they're just assholes. "Bigot" might be a better term, but it's not quite as specific as "homophobic" is.
But for that matter, homosexuality isn't really deviancy; you don't have to indulge in it, just don't discriminate against it; and you can call anybody anything you want thanks to free speech.
There's nothing Mars-specific about those; they aren't even interplanetary travel problems. We have do deal with those here on Earth, so we're already pretty used to them.
3. radiation 4. equipment failure
Valid problems, but sufficiently well-engineered hardware and equipment can mitigate them.
5. missed supply missions 6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Those aren't going to be problems because supply missions are pointless for a colony. It is so expensive and takes so long to send something to Mars that there's no point in building a colony that relies on resupplying from earth; a colony would need to be self-sustaining from near its beginning to be viable at all.
But how are you going to get those greenhouse gasses to stay on the planet? With Mars' lower gravity and lack of a magnetic field, the solar winds will blow away any excess atmosphere.
Why do you think make -j 4 or make -j 8 makes a noticeable difference on even single core machines?
Uh... in my experience, they don't make much of a difference. They slightly increase performance due to one process being able to compile while another process is doing disk I/O, but it's not a huge difference. Shouldn't your build system be piping data between processes rather than writing intermediate files out to disk?
The only step of the build process on my C++ projects that is significantly I/O bound is the linking step, and even then, it's only an issue if I'm linking in a large static library.
Surely it's at least as easy to help folks without vitamin A grow spinach, kale, carrots, sweet potatoes, etc as it is to have them grow a different variety of rice.
How are you going to terraform the land so that any of those crops can grow in the kind of environment they're growing rice in?
If the form factor is your primary objection, why not just buy a regular 3DS? It has the added bonus of having stereo audio. (and 3D mode, which you can turn off and never look at again if you don't like it)
You realize that this is targeted towards young (7 y. o.) kids, right? The kind of kids who are very good at breaking mechanical hinges but don't care if their screens get scuffed up a bit?
The same kind of kinds who are going to be all over the new Pokemon games coming out in a few months?
You don't like the design? That's cool, this doesn't have any features that your existing 3DS doesn't have. Continue on as if nothing as changed.
They haven't "fucked up," they're setting up for every parent of a young child to be buying a new system and game come Black Friday.
My UID isn't quite as low as yours, but I think the worst story I've ever seen was the front-page story bonk posted that was just a picture of a snake eating its own tail.
So what I'm getting from your post is that you don't know anything about TV programming, but you still feel like you know enough to feel smugly superior to anybody who watches TV and tell the TV producers how they should be doing it.
Because it's illegal and just because you want to watch something doesn't give you license to do so without the creators' permissions? You do not have a right to watch whatever you want for free. The people who made the show deserve to be compensated for it if they've done a good job.
Unless you're using a legal, ad-free downloading service, in which case good for you.
Slashdot Mirror
not so fast...that 'safety' they measure has very rapidly decreasing marginal utility...after awhile a .0000000000000001% gain in 'safety' is not work the extra 20 minutes to your commute b/c the Google control software won't let your car ever get any closer than 2 car lengths...so turning left on that busy intersection takes 3x as long in the morning....
When was the last time you took a driving class? They recommend you keep at least 4 seconds between you and the car in front of you as the minimum safe distance you need to stop if an emergency happens.
If you're regularly driving with less than 2 seconds between you and the car in front of you, congratulations, you're part of the problem that automated cars are trying to solve, and I can't wait until you're no longer behind the wheel on a highway.
This is kind of hilarious. I'm tempted to accuse you of being a Sony shill, but I think you just don't know what you're talking about, since apparently you think the Wii U is called either a "new WII", "Wii Mii", or "wii/mii".
But to quickly refute all of your complaints:
1) The Wii and Wii U are cheaper than all of their contemporary competitors.
2) There are a fuckton of great Wii games, and you are blind. Try anything published by Nintendo -- Super Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, etc. -- or for third-party games, Monster Hunter, Xenoblade, Pandora's Tower, The Last Story, etc... The Wii U's library is a bit more anemic so far, but Wind Waker HD and Wonderful 101 are pretty fantastic, and it won't be long until Super Mario 3D World and Bayonetta 2 are out. There's also a Call of Duty game if that's more your kind of thing. Consoles don't usually have a lot of blockbusters when they're first released. Remember back when the PS3 had no exclusives and the 360 had nothing but sports games? Maybe being an early adopter just isn't for you?
3) I'm sorry that you're terrified of social networking and decided to half-ass connecting your system to the internet, and now you're annoyed that it's trying to get you to finish the process. Not sure what else to say about that. If you really believe Nintendo is going to give your e-mail address to spambots, just make a throwaway gmail address or something.
4) The Wii and Wii U are both gaming consoles, not video streaming platforms, and if you have complaints with third-party video apps, complain to the third parties, not Nintendo.
5) Good luck finding a set top box, or tablet that is cheaper than a Wii and has a comparable game library.
And really...
IMO Nintendo is on its last legs.
Yes, they're struggling to survive after just barely selling 4 million Pokemon games in its opening week.
Maybe you're just not the target audience?
Then there were the blue laws, where you could go to the store on Sunday but not buy certain things.
Some of those laws are gone, but some of them are still around. Grocery stores can't sell liquor, and they can't sell any alcohol before noon on Sunday. That really confused a friend of mine the first time he needed to get some cooking sherry on a Sunday morning.
Remember, the Republican party is pro-business! Unless your business is doing something they find morally objectionable.
If the gameplay is so simplistic that its bottable, then it's pretty boring to me.
Yes, that's the point. You use a bot to take care of the boring parts of the game so that you can concentrate on playing the fun parts of the game.
I'm not following your logic here. What makes you think that parents who are well below average in all of those categories will be able to -- or even be inclined to -- teach their children to above-average standards?
Oh, sorry, you said I'm not allow to complain about that, so I can't. Yes, let's go back to the days of parents just teaching their children whatever they felt like, because America was a bastion of intelligence back during the pioneer days.
To be fair, as the CEO of a company, he has a pretty big influence over a lot of peoples' jobs. If he refuses to hire a certain class of people, that's a pretty big deal for any potential job-seekers in his company's area.
Why? Because a heterosexual "COUPLE", by definition has a man and a woman so the child will be exposed to both male and female role models in the home.
The issue here isn't heterosexual couples adopting vs. homosexual couples adopting. It's homosexual couples adopting vs. not being adopted at all. I don't know if you've ever looked at the state of orphanages or adoption agencies, but they are packed with kids that are not being adopted. Do you believe it's better for a child to live in an orphanage until they're too old to keep or to be constantly passed between foster families than it is to be adopted by a gay couple?
It is generally accepted that the most well adjusted children come from a loving family where there is a mother and a father in the home. Children from single mother or single father families tend to have some issues. For example, a girl who is raised by a single father will not have a female to model herself after and visa versa.
"Generally accepted"? Please show me some studies and provide citations.
I'm sorry if you are offended by "science" and "facts".
I love science and facts, but all I see from you is conjecture.
What are you trying to tell us here? Do you resent your parents for having you? What is up with your antagonism towards heterosexuals? Why do you hate them so much? Why do you hate the traditional family? Have you considered seeking out a therapist to work out your issues? Were you from a single parent home?
You're stuffing words into my mouth again. What I am trying to tell you here is that I'm making a counter-argument to the original poster's argument, which you seem to have completely forgotten about. I'm from a "traditional" two-parent home and have no problems with them. I don't have any problem with heterosexuals (I am one, by the way!), just bigots.
What is bad for society is your insistence on silencing those who think differently. That is what the nazis tried to do.
No, the Nazis tried to commit genocide. The fact that you would think that is even comparable to disagreeing with somebody on a public forum makes your entire argument laughable. Come back and try again when the original poster has attempted to murder you and everybody who is related to you.
WTF? Do you see children as chattel? Do you think children should be bought and sold to anyone with the money to pay? You can be as gay as you want to be but don't assume that anyone has an absolute right to adopt and raise a child.
The child should be placed the the best environment possible for the "CHILD". Their needs must come first, not yours.
Stop treating children like property.
Wow, you sure are putting a lot of words into my mouth. I never said any of those things, so stop acting like I did.
The original poster I replied to was justifying the opposite of adoption by gay couples by saying that since the children have no choice in the matter, it's wrong. If the thing that he really objects to here is the children having no choice, then why is it ok for heterosexual couples to adopt? Why is it ok for them to give birth to children who have no choice about it, for that matter?
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate. A culture based around sustaining enough population to maintain itself through immigration is a) parasitic, b) evil and c) fundamentally self destructive.
The social contract where you get to relax and let the young people take care of things when you're old and tired relies on everyone paying into the system. Not with money. With babies. Nothing else will do, there's nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.
Hahahah. Wow. Seriously, this is hilarious. I would think you're a troll, but you seem so level-headed about it, and you sound a lot like some Objectivists I've talked to.
Homosexuals don't "reject procreation" at all. They are attracted to members of the same sex. That's it. They don't "reject procreation" any more than heterosexual couples that use birth control. Gay men and lesbian women are still perfectly fertile and capable of having children -- and sometimes they do! Sometimes they also like to adopt and care for orphaned children. I don't know if you've looked at an orphanage or adoption agency recently, but there is no shortage of children whose parents either could not or would not take care of them. Do you feel the same way about heterosexual couples who don't have more than two children? They're not doing their job to overpopulate the world!
It seems like you think being homosexual is some kind of choice. There's no such thing as "promoting" it. People don't suddenly decide that being gay is cool and switch who they're attracted to. The only thing that not being prejudiced against gay people will do is make people who are already gay happier. The only consequence of people "embracing" their homosexuality is that they won't hate themselves because of people telling them they're evil.
He is, however, against adoption by gay parents (because it involves a person who has no choice in the matter).
That prompts the question, why isn't he against adoption by heterosexual parents?
But for that matter, cannibalism isn't really deviancy; you don't have to indulge in it, just don't discriminate against it; and you can call anybody anything you want thanks to free speech.
Except, of course, that homosexuality involves loving relationships between people of the same gender, and cannibalism involves murder, so they're not really comparable at all.
Anything that differs from the norm IS a deviancy!
In a statistical sense this is true, but in a social sense, something is "deviant" if it differs from what society in general considers acceptable. The only people who consider homosexuality unacceptable nowadays (within the USA, at least) are the extreme right-wing, fundamentalist Christians.
Well, you're right that "phobia" isn't really the best term. They're not scared, they're just assholes. "Bigot" might be a better term, but it's not quite as specific as "homophobic" is.
But for that matter, homosexuality isn't really deviancy; you don't have to indulge in it, just don't discriminate against it; and you can call anybody anything you want thanks to free speech.
Not liking pasta, now that's deviancy.
1. suicide
2. homicide
There's nothing Mars-specific about those; they aren't even interplanetary travel problems. We have do deal with those here on Earth, so we're already pretty used to them.
3. radiation
4. equipment failure
Valid problems, but sufficiently well-engineered hardware and equipment can mitigate them.
5. missed supply missions
6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Those aren't going to be problems because supply missions are pointless for a colony. It is so expensive and takes so long to send something to Mars that there's no point in building a colony that relies on resupplying from earth; a colony would need to be self-sustaining from near its beginning to be viable at all.
But how are you going to get those greenhouse gasses to stay on the planet? With Mars' lower gravity and lack of a magnetic field, the solar winds will blow away any excess atmosphere.
Having a lot of RAM isn't going to make the initial read of files from disk or writing to them any faster.
Why do you think make -j 4 or make -j 8 makes a noticeable difference on even single core machines?
Uh... in my experience, they don't make much of a difference. They slightly increase performance due to one process being able to compile while another process is doing disk I/O, but it's not a huge difference. Shouldn't your build system be piping data between processes rather than writing intermediate files out to disk?
The only step of the build process on my C++ projects that is significantly I/O bound is the linking step, and even then, it's only an issue if I'm linking in a large static library.
Surely it's at least as easy to help folks without vitamin A grow spinach, kale, carrots, sweet potatoes, etc as it is to have them grow a different variety of rice.
How are you going to terraform the land so that any of those crops can grow in the kind of environment they're growing rice in?
You can't have a religion with no gods. That is like saying non-fruit apple. It makes no sense.
I think you might be interested in learning about Zen Buddhism. (quick tip: it does not require belief in any deities) Also see Jainism and Taoism.
If the form factor is your primary objection, why not just buy a regular 3DS? It has the added bonus of having stereo audio. (and 3D mode, which you can turn off and never look at again if you don't like it)
You realize that this is targeted towards young (7 y. o.) kids, right? The kind of kids who are very good at breaking mechanical hinges but don't care if their screens get scuffed up a bit?
The same kind of kinds who are going to be all over the new Pokemon games coming out in a few months?
You don't like the design? That's cool, this doesn't have any features that your existing 3DS doesn't have. Continue on as if nothing as changed.
They haven't "fucked up," they're setting up for every parent of a young child to be buying a new system and game come Black Friday.
My UID isn't quite as low as yours, but I think the worst story I've ever seen was the front-page story bonk posted that was just a picture of a snake eating its own tail.
This one might take second place, though.
So what I'm getting from your post is that you don't know anything about TV programming, but you still feel like you know enough to feel smugly superior to anybody who watches TV and tell the TV producers how they should be doing it.
Because it's illegal and just because you want to watch something doesn't give you license to do so without the creators' permissions? You do not have a right to watch whatever you want for free. The people who made the show deserve to be compensated for it if they've done a good job.
Unless you're using a legal, ad-free downloading service, in which case good for you.
My car's engine or its wheels?
Do I need to have a fuel tank, too?
(sorry, I couldn't resist making a car analogy)