Of course, Apple doesn't want to integreate X11 because they know full well that if they provided decent X11 support, 90% of the OS X applications would be X11 based, and that's not in their interest.
I don't follow your logic here. If 90% of the OS X apps were X11 based, then there would likely be more apps for the Mac, making it a more attractive hardware platform. Since Apple is at its core, a hardware company, my gut feeling is that Apple'd like this more, not less, but I'm not the smartest in this whole field.
They are not generally in the practice of admitting that this is what they are doing. Usually they claim just the opposite.
The head of the ICR not only said that their purpose was to challenge ideas that "didn't fit their worldview," he actually made sure I repeated it back to him to make sure I got the point.
The lyrics are usualy advocating an ethical system I find very deplorable - namely that might makes right, and since god is the biggest might around, the right thing to do is follow his orders.
I haven't heard that song before, but I've only been a Christian for a few decades. Although once, in church choir, I did sing lyrics very close to this:
"My God, I love thee not because
I hope for heaven thereby,
Nor yet because who love thee not
Must burn eternally."
I love thee, O my Saviour, because on the cross thou didst bear shame, and spitting, and manifold disgrace for me.
You aren't advocating intelligent study of the bible (read it first, then decide if it's true afterward). You are advocating coming to the conclusion that it is true first, and then studying it in a manner designed to force an interpretation to fit the premise that it is true.
You're precisely right that that's what I'm doing, and that it's intellectually dishonest to do so. Making the issue as black and white as "the Bible is either all Truth or all Lies" and then trying desperately to get reality to fit into that little box you've made is an awful way to look at beliefs.
We're discussing Creationism here. Creationists are in the business of fitting the facts to their worldview, rather than composing a worldview to fit the evidence as things are, and they admit as much quite gladly. When the sun didn't exist until the 4th day, by the story itself, it becomes an event of grandiose logical gymnastics to suggest that these were Earth Days, regardless of the contents of Psalms or Exodus. If you are a Creationist, and believe the Bible is Truth, you must take what's said in Psalms 90 into account as a valid alternative for the length of time of these six "days;" the only way to make the 24-hour interpretation palatable is to make something up that isn't there, like that God used a temporary light source or something (the actual explanation an ICR staff member gave me when I asked him about it).
What I want to do is debate the issue with the Creationists starting from the very assumptions they make, because even on their own terms, by what Creationists define to be Truth, their beliefs do not stand to scrutiny or logic. The reason for doing this is that in order to have a civil discussion, you have to start with a point of agreement. From there, you can introduce new points of view.
The only way the first book of Genesis makes sense is if it is not a literal description of Creation, and it does so not because of Psalms 90, but because of its own internal inconsistencies. In the contexxt of literature, however, this is not an inconsistency -- it's poetry, and pretty good stuff at that.
"The Psalms part of the volume is nowhere near Genesis part of the volume."
The Bible is is a resource for study, not "God For Dummies." If you have a question about the way the Bible was edited, why not go read about the people who compiled it in the early Church, how they did it and why we have the current format we have today?
You're basically saying, "But if you look at the Bible simplistically, that doesn't make sense!" Well, don't look at the Bible simplistically!
If you're not going to use your brain... well, remember the Parable of the Talents? Right now, you're burying your brains in the dirt.
I don't see how you extrapolate "verification" from that passage. That's even weaker than my bringing in Psalms 90:4, and it does nothing to address the main problem with belief in six 24-hour days, which is that there were no 24-hour days for the first three "days" of creation.
You and I both are interpreting the Bible to fit what we want. The difference is that my contortions fit extrabiblical evidence, and yours go against that evidence.
What exactly are you referring to here? I read the passage, and I don't see where it would contradict the view that a day in the Bible is 24 hours.
Of course, I'm not referring to every use of the word "Day" in the Bible, just this particular instance.
Psalms 90:4:
"For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night."
In other words, what seems like a thousand years (or a million for that matter) to us is but a few hours ("A watch in the night" is about 3 hours, a "day" is 24 or 12 depending on how you interpret it, the point is: a really short time) to God.
"A thousand years" is like saying "though she be a thousand miles away, I would still love her" doesn't mean that the poet would stop loving her if she were one thousand miles away plus one foot, or even if she were two thousand miles away.
I mean, what kind of poetry is that?
Would you love me if I were one thousand miles away?
Yes, I would. Would you love me if I were two thousand miles away? Yes, I would. Would you love me if I were three thousand miles away? Ehrm, ahh, well... maybe?
That, plus the fact that "a day" and "a watch in the night" are both brief periods of time, suggests Moses isn't trying to be specific here: He's not saying that if you take the amount of time in Genesis 1 and multiply it by some X, where X is equal to (Length of time for a man) divided by (Length of time for God) then you could somehow divine the length of creation time.
The point is that what we view as a long time is not as such for God. It could take millions of years for an animal to evolve into, say, a cow, but God doesn't exactly have to wait for all that time to pass the way you and I have to. There's no reason he couldn't have accelerated things to happen within a 24-hour time frame, but why would He need to? The only reason He would need to is to meet one human's interpretation of another human's poem to Him, and He doesn't let the tail wag the Dog like that.
The thing with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, and that's what makes it a non-contender.
I think I understand what you mean, and I agree that we can't prove or disprove that the universe wasn't created by a higher being, versus "just happened."
When we talk about Creationism, we're talking about a specific set of beliefs. Note the capital "C." When I talk about Creationism, I'm talking about the ideas put forth by the Institute for Creation Research.
Since the ICR is quite specific with what it means by "Creationism," and goes further than the mere statement, "God created all this stuff," we do have something we can discuss and items we can prove or disprove. Not only can you disprove their claims from a scientific point of view, you can do it (quite easily, I might add) from a theological point of view.
I get great pleasure in using the theological approach; if you can show a fundamentalist his belief in "Creation according to the Bible" actually doesn't gel with the Bible at all without making shit up, then you're at least speaking to him in terms he understands and agrees with. You begin with a point of agreement, that the Bible is Truth, and then show him that the Bible doesn't say what he thinks it does after all.
My favorite example is the time frame of Creationism. The ICR insists that the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days, thus the "Evening" and "Morning." Now any Biblical scholar worth his salt will point out that the repeated "Evening and morning, an Nth Day" is a literary device, a part of Hebrew culture. The thing is, how could there have been earthly evenings and mornings, when the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19)? Also compare with Psalms 90:4, and particularly the notation "A prayer of Moses" at the beginning of Psalms 90; if you believe the traditional view that Moses penned Genesis, then the view that these were 24-hour days is increasingly difficult to buy given his statement here.
The ICR's official answer to the Psalms 90 question is that (1) the word "day" is only used for 24-hour days in the Bible (Of course, no way it could be a poetic device!) and (2) You should suspect anyone who suggests this of being guilty of rationalizing.
Yeah... damn that sin of rationality.;)
Being a scientist and a Christian, few things piss me off more than the ICR. They really, really stick in my craw.
OTOH, Isaac Asimov had essentially the same thing happen to him (slipped in to a lecture hall where his books were being discussed), and the conclusion he came to was that he probably didn't understand the meaning of his own work. Which, given his self-described arrogance, was a very interesting thing for him to say.
I wonder if this happened before or after Asimov wrote the short story, "The Immortal Bard," where a scientist uses a time machine to drag Shakespeare from the past and enroll him into a course on Shakespearean literature... only to earn a failing grade.
Right now the USA is split into three major power grids: East, West, and Texas. Texas law specifies that Texas must be self-reliant on energy, and have its own grid. So what's in this article is not necessarily applicable to the rest of the nation, or even the world.
The way this is written, people who use Reliant energy in Houston will realize, "Hey, for the same price I'm already paying, I can be cool with the environment, too." (Like that's possible.) The article makes a point of mentioning that Reliant is the most expensive provider in the area.
So, reading between the lines, this is an article more about price gouging by Reliant than it is about Green Energy becoming
Sacrifice is tied into the consumption of food -- you don't offer sacrifice of something you are not eating. Able had to have been eating meat. You may need to check with other Bible commentators on how to understand Genesis 9:3.
I'm no scholar, but just because Abel wasn't supposed to eat meat doesn't mean he didn't.
Considering "God tells people to be cool and they go do bad shit anyway" is one of the overarching themes of the Bible that interpretation isn't exactly going against the grain or wildly unorthodox...
Poor God. Just another victim of an inflexible Universe that is beyond his control....by His choice. Ever heard of "Free Will?"
The definition of Hell is: Separation from God. You can choose to separate yourself from God. God won't stop you. He won't make you love Him. But being without God is what Hell is. You don't even have to die to get there!
If Hell is all you've ever known, how would you know there's anything better?
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering if you could comment on the strange dichotomy which you seem to support: The idea that your moral values are correct and ought to be supported by the government, and the idea that the moral values inherent in embryonic stem-cell research ought to be cast aside.
Softball question.
The moral good of new healing techniques based on stem-cell research might or might not outweigh the moral bad of studying embryos which have already been condemned to death through abortion. Some Christians believe one way, and others believe the other, and most of us really don't care one way or the other.
If you ask a cellist why she plays the cello instead of the electric guitar you also won't get a sensible answer. It's... bigger? Deeper? Softer?
Because my parents were more willing to spend $10k on an ancient relic than $5k on a Marshall stack and a Les Paul, and now I'm too used to the instrument I learned to try to change to something else.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along
on
SCO.com Defaced
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The long-term negative effects this will have on the Linux community's image and the loathing I have for vandals outweighs the short-term humor of the gag.
Aramis, or the Love of Technology is a very strange book about the French government's attempt to creates just such a robotic system.
Over 18 years and 500 million Francs were spent trying to bring it to fruition.
It was for public transportation what Duke Nukem Forever has been for video games. Overlong, overfunded, changing identies from year to year, constantly promised, never arrived, and eventually the government gave up.
The fact that didn't work doesn't mean this won't; Aramis's failure is more about bad project management than it is about the difficulty of solving the problems stated here -- although this company has an uphill climb to prove that their system is better than automobiles or standard trains. I'm just surprised no one else has mentioned Aramis yet.
It's hardly a liberal thing. Political "Rope-a-dope" was also Rove/Bush's strategy to get elected governor of Texas, and other than Austin he didn't have to appeal to any liberals; instead, he was going up against the most successful Texas governor of the second half of the 20th century. But her campaign made the same mistake; they tried to portray him as a buffoon.
Remember when millions around the world took to the streets to protest the Iraq invasion? Bush publicly praised them.
This guy thrives politically on the hatred of his enemies. He is the master of political judo, of making people's insults and criticisms come back and hurt them. And in two governor's races and in two presidential races, he's done it.
Shoot... if he's so dumb, and the people trying to remove him are so smart, why are the smart ones all on the outside looking in? Perhaps they aren't so smart after all.
I realize you're trying to make a joke, and that a number of people will find this funny... people you might not expect, and for very different reasons than you think.
Your joke reinforces a belief most Americans have: That left-leaning people think they have all of the answers and that anyone who disagrees with them are idiots. I've had a friend even honestly admit as much to me: That anyone who disagreed with him was either stupid or evil.
Not does arrogance not win you any friends, it doesn't win you any votes. Not winning people's votes is deadly in Democracy.
People who voted for Bush were not ignorant of his faults, nor did they vote for him because of his faults. Nobody likes a know-it-all, and voting for Bush was a protest against the actors and rock musicians and college professors who told them that they were idiots if they liked George W. Bush or his policies -- that getting rid of Bush was more important than who we replaced him with. It doesn't matter if they ARE idiots. By telling them they are for even considering it, the people trying to get rid of Bush doomed themselves, exactly the same way the people trying to ditch Clinton doomed themselves in 1996.
So your joke is funny, but it is Karl Rove who is laughing, all the way to the White House, Congress, and soon the Supreme Court. You're playing right into Rove's hands.
Stop making this so easy for him, so that maybe we can avoid turning into a permanent one-party State.
Oldschool PC Gamers will know of what I speak when I say, "Think Star Control 3."
Think Star Control 3.
You're not an oldschool PC Gamer? Short version: Star Control was the brainchild of Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III, who made a bunch of other great games (such as Archon) in the early days of VGA games on the PC featuring 2-player 2D battles with various ships/creatures. Star Control was a surprise hit. Then, they teamed up with Starflight creator Greg Johnson to create one of the greatest PC games ever, Star Control 2. Publisher Accolade booted the original developers to make more money off the franchise with Star Control 3, which had none of Ford/Reiche3's combat elements or Johnson's space-RPG elements -- the very things that made the franchise great in the first place. The game bombed critically and financially.
Great! Since you love computer stuff so much, how about you come work for me? I can find all kinds of things for you to work on. The work is tough, however, the demands are high, and you'll be required to put in long hours. But I guarantee you the work is very rewarding. I'm sorry, but I won't be able to pay you anything, but since the job is so fun and rewarding, that won't be a problem, will it? At least you can feel good seeing how rich I get from your free labor.
Why would I when my current employer -- and many others -- will pay me?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, Apple doesn't want to integreate X11 because they know full well that if they provided decent X11 support, 90% of the OS X applications would be X11 based, and that's not in their interest.
I don't follow your logic here. If 90% of the OS X apps were X11 based, then there would likely be more apps for the Mac, making it a more attractive hardware platform. Since Apple is at its core, a hardware company, my gut feeling is that Apple'd like this more, not less, but I'm not the smartest in this whole field.
What's your thinking on this?
The head of the ICR not only said that their purpose was to challenge ideas that "didn't fit their worldview," he actually made sure I repeated it back to him to make sure I got the point.
The lyrics are usualy advocating an ethical system I find very deplorable - namely that might makes right, and since god is the biggest might around, the right thing to do is follow his orders.
I haven't heard that song before, but I've only been a Christian for a few decades. Although once, in church choir, I did sing lyrics very close to this:
You aren't advocating intelligent study of the bible (read it first, then decide if it's true afterward). You are advocating coming to the conclusion that it is true first, and then studying it in a manner designed to force an interpretation to fit the premise that it is true.
You're precisely right that that's what I'm doing, and that it's intellectually dishonest to do so. Making the issue as black and white as "the Bible is either all Truth or all Lies" and then trying desperately to get reality to fit into that little box you've made is an awful way to look at beliefs.
We're discussing Creationism here. Creationists are in the business of fitting the facts to their worldview, rather than composing a worldview to fit the evidence as things are, and they admit as much quite gladly. When the sun didn't exist until the 4th day, by the story itself, it becomes an event of grandiose logical gymnastics to suggest that these were Earth Days, regardless of the contents of Psalms or Exodus. If you are a Creationist, and believe the Bible is Truth, you must take what's said in Psalms 90 into account as a valid alternative for the length of time of these six "days;" the only way to make the 24-hour interpretation palatable is to make something up that isn't there, like that God used a temporary light source or something (the actual explanation an ICR staff member gave me when I asked him about it).
What I want to do is debate the issue with the Creationists starting from the very assumptions they make, because even on their own terms, by what Creationists define to be Truth, their beliefs do not stand to scrutiny or logic. The reason for doing this is that in order to have a civil discussion, you have to start with a point of agreement. From there, you can introduce new points of view.
The only way the first book of Genesis makes sense is if it is not a literal description of Creation, and it does so not because of Psalms 90, but because of its own internal inconsistencies. In the contexxt of literature, however, this is not an inconsistency -- it's poetry, and pretty good stuff at that.
"The Psalms part of the volume is nowhere near Genesis part of the volume."
The Bible is is a resource for study, not "God For Dummies." If you have a question about the way the Bible was edited, why not go read about the people who compiled it in the early Church, how they did it and why we have the current format we have today?
You're basically saying, "But if you look at the Bible simplistically, that doesn't make sense!" Well, don't look at the Bible simplistically!
If you're not going to use your brain... well, remember the Parable of the Talents? Right now, you're burying your brains in the dirt.
I don't see how you extrapolate "verification" from that passage. That's even weaker than my bringing in Psalms 90:4, and it does nothing to address the main problem with belief in six 24-hour days, which is that there were no 24-hour days for the first three "days" of creation.
You and I both are interpreting the Bible to fit what we want. The difference is that my contortions fit extrabiblical evidence, and yours go against that evidence.
Of course, I'm not referring to every use of the word "Day" in the Bible, just this particular instance.
Psalms 90:4:
"For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night."
In other words, what seems like a thousand years (or a million for that matter) to us is but a few hours ("A watch in the night" is about 3 hours, a "day" is 24 or 12 depending on how you interpret it, the point is: a really short time) to God.
"A thousand years" is like saying "though she be a thousand miles away, I would still love her" doesn't mean that the poet would stop loving her if she were one thousand miles away plus one foot, or even if she were two thousand miles away.
I mean, what kind of poetry is that?
That, plus the fact that "a day" and "a watch in the night" are both brief periods of time, suggests Moses isn't trying to be specific here: He's not saying that if you take the amount of time in Genesis 1 and multiply it by some X, where X is equal to (Length of time for a man) divided by (Length of time for God) then you could somehow divine the length of creation time.
The point is that what we view as a long time is not as such for God. It could take millions of years for an animal to evolve into, say, a cow, but God doesn't exactly have to wait for all that time to pass the way you and I have to. There's no reason he couldn't have accelerated things to happen within a 24-hour time frame, but why would He need to? The only reason He would need to is to meet one human's interpretation of another human's poem to Him, and He doesn't let the tail wag the Dog like that.
The thing with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, and that's what makes it a non-contender.
;)
I think I understand what you mean, and I agree that we can't prove or disprove that the universe wasn't created by a higher being, versus "just happened."
When we talk about Creationism, we're talking about a specific set of beliefs. Note the capital "C." When I talk about Creationism, I'm talking about the ideas put forth by the Institute for Creation Research.
Since the ICR is quite specific with what it means by "Creationism," and goes further than the mere statement, "God created all this stuff," we do have something we can discuss and items we can prove or disprove. Not only can you disprove their claims from a scientific point of view, you can do it (quite easily, I might add) from a theological point of view.
I get great pleasure in using the theological approach; if you can show a fundamentalist his belief in "Creation according to the Bible" actually doesn't gel with the Bible at all without making shit up, then you're at least speaking to him in terms he understands and agrees with. You begin with a point of agreement, that the Bible is Truth, and then show him that the Bible doesn't say what he thinks it does after all.
My favorite example is the time frame of Creationism. The ICR insists that the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days, thus the "Evening" and "Morning." Now any Biblical scholar worth his salt will point out that the repeated "Evening and morning, an Nth Day" is a literary device, a part of Hebrew culture. The thing is, how could there have been earthly evenings and mornings, when the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19)? Also compare with Psalms 90:4, and particularly the notation "A prayer of Moses" at the beginning of Psalms 90; if you believe the traditional view that Moses penned Genesis, then the view that these were 24-hour days is increasingly difficult to buy given his statement here.
The ICR's official answer to the Psalms 90 question is that (1) the word "day" is only used for 24-hour days in the Bible (Of course, no way it could be a poetic device!) and (2) You should suspect anyone who suggests this of being guilty of rationalizing.
Yeah... damn that sin of rationality.
Being a scientist and a Christian, few things piss me off more than the ICR. They really, really stick in my craw.
OTOH, Isaac Asimov had essentially the same thing happen to him (slipped in to a lecture hall where his books were being discussed), and the conclusion he came to was that he probably didn't understand the meaning of his own work. Which, given his self-described arrogance, was a very interesting thing for him to say.
I wonder if this happened before or after Asimov wrote the short story, "The Immortal Bard," where a scientist uses a time machine to drag Shakespeare from the past and enroll him into a course on Shakespearean literature... only to earn a failing grade.
Even the "dept." makes more sense than any I've read. Yeah, USAA owns. It's a shame more people aren't eligible for it; I'm glad that I am.
Why is this important?
Right now the USA is split into three major power grids: East, West, and Texas. Texas law specifies that Texas must be self-reliant on energy, and have its own grid. So what's in this article is not necessarily applicable to the rest of the nation, or even the world.
The way this is written, people who use Reliant energy in Houston will realize, "Hey, for the same price I'm already paying, I can be cool with the environment, too." (Like that's possible.) The article makes a point of mentioning that Reliant is the most expensive provider in the area.
So, reading between the lines, this is an article more about price gouging by Reliant than it is about Green Energy becoming
Sacrifice is tied into the consumption of food -- you don't offer sacrifice of something you are not eating. Able had to have been eating meat. You may need to check with other Bible commentators on how to understand Genesis 9:3.
I'm no scholar, but just because Abel wasn't supposed to eat meat doesn't mean he didn't.
Considering "God tells people to be cool and they go do bad shit anyway" is one of the overarching themes of the Bible that interpretation isn't exactly going against the grain or wildly unorthodox...
Poor God. Just another victim of an inflexible Universe that is beyond his control. ...by His choice. Ever heard of "Free Will?"
The definition of Hell is: Separation from God. You can choose to separate yourself from God. God won't stop you. He won't make you love Him. But being without God is what Hell is. You don't even have to die to get there!
If Hell is all you've ever known, how would you know there's anything better?
i am tubgirl
puke
Man, she's ugly too.
With Windows, you needed a whole staff to manage all your servers.
;)
With Linux, you can hire a bearded guru part-time to keep you up to date.
You seem to be extremely educated, so I was wondering if you could comment on the strange dichotomy which you seem to support: The idea that your moral values are correct and ought to be supported by the government, and the idea that the moral values inherent in embryonic stem-cell research ought to be cast aside.
Softball question.
The moral good of new healing techniques based on stem-cell research might or might not outweigh the moral bad of studying embryos which have already been condemned to death through abortion. Some Christians believe one way, and others believe the other, and most of us really don't care one way or the other.
If you ask a cellist why she plays the cello instead of the electric guitar you also won't get a sensible answer. It's... bigger? Deeper? Softer?
Because my parents were more willing to spend $10k on an ancient relic than $5k on a Marshall stack and a Les Paul, and now I'm too used to the instrument I learned to try to change to something else.
The long-term negative effects this will have on the Linux community's image and the loathing I have for vandals outweighs the short-term humor of the gag.
My website right now shows about 65% IE, because I get a lot of hits from slashdotters.
But if you look at the details of the logs, the percentage is much lower.
It seems that many of the worms that hit my site report themselves as being IE.
I don't know if any of these surveys differentiate between legitimate browser hits and worms, but I bet they don't.
This very idea has been tried before.
Aramis, or the Love of Technology is a very strange book about the French government's attempt to creates just such a robotic system.
Over 18 years and 500 million Francs were spent trying to bring it to fruition.
It was for public transportation what Duke Nukem Forever has been for video games. Overlong, overfunded, changing identies from year to year, constantly promised, never arrived, and eventually the government gave up.
The fact that didn't work doesn't mean this won't; Aramis's failure is more about bad project management than it is about the difficulty of solving the problems stated here -- although this company has an uphill climb to prove that their system is better than automobiles or standard trains. I'm just surprised no one else has mentioned Aramis yet.
It's hardly a liberal thing. Political "Rope-a-dope" was also Rove/Bush's strategy to get elected governor of Texas, and other than Austin he didn't have to appeal to any liberals; instead, he was going up against the most successful Texas governor of the second half of the 20th century. But her campaign made the same mistake; they tried to portray him as a buffoon.
Remember when millions around the world took to the streets to protest the Iraq invasion? Bush publicly praised them.
This guy thrives politically on the hatred of his enemies. He is the master of political judo, of making people's insults and criticisms come back and hurt them. And in two governor's races and in two presidential races, he's done it.
Shoot... if he's so dumb, and the people trying to remove him are so smart, why are the smart ones all on the outside looking in? Perhaps they aren't so smart after all.
I realize you're trying to make a joke, and that a number of people will find this funny... people you might not expect, and for very different reasons than you think.
Your joke reinforces a belief most Americans have: That left-leaning people think they have all of the answers and that anyone who disagrees with them are idiots. I've had a friend even honestly admit as much to me: That anyone who disagreed with him was either stupid or evil.
Not does arrogance not win you any friends, it doesn't win you any votes. Not winning people's votes is deadly in Democracy.
People who voted for Bush were not ignorant of his faults, nor did they vote for him because of his faults. Nobody likes a know-it-all, and voting for Bush was a protest against the actors and rock musicians and college professors who told them that they were idiots if they liked George W. Bush or his policies -- that getting rid of Bush was more important than who we replaced him with. It doesn't matter if they ARE idiots. By telling them they are for even considering it, the people trying to get rid of Bush doomed themselves, exactly the same way the people trying to ditch Clinton doomed themselves in 1996.
So your joke is funny, but it is Karl Rove who is laughing, all the way to the White House, Congress, and soon the Supreme Court. You're playing right into Rove's hands.
Stop making this so easy for him, so that maybe we can avoid turning into a permanent one-party State.
Oldschool PC Gamers will know of what I speak when I say, "Think Star Control 3."
Think Star Control 3.
You're not an oldschool PC Gamer? Short version: Star Control was the brainchild of Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III, who made a bunch of other great games (such as Archon) in the early days of VGA games on the PC featuring 2-player 2D battles with various ships/creatures. Star Control was a surprise hit. Then, they teamed up with Starflight creator Greg Johnson to create one of the greatest PC games ever, Star Control 2. Publisher Accolade booted the original developers to make more money off the franchise with Star Control 3, which had none of Ford/Reiche3's combat elements or Johnson's space-RPG elements -- the very things that made the franchise great in the first place. The game bombed critically and financially.
And Toy Story 3 will suck, too.
Having seen them at the San Diego Comic-Con, they look exactly like they do in the comic, only better.
Great! Since you love computer stuff so much, how about you come work for me? I can find all kinds of things for you to work on. The work is tough, however, the demands are high, and you'll be required to put in long hours. But I guarantee you the work is very rewarding. I'm sorry, but I won't be able to pay you anything, but since the job is so fun and rewarding, that won't be a problem, will it? At least you can feel good seeing how rich I get from your free labor.
Why would I when my current employer -- and many others -- will pay me?
Don't make such a silly argument.