You already have the story, the actors, the dialog, the setpieces, etc.
That's the whole point actually. You have everything needed for a good movie...but we haven't yet seen a movie adaptation of a video game which utilizes all of the above to the best possible extent.
This site stores your viewing preferences in cookies. It is possible to opt out of this in your settings. However, that information will be stored in a cookie. Do you still wish to opt out?
Somalia is not an anarchy. Sure, they have no national government, but most of the country is run by Islamists who established crazy sharia laws which are no better than those of talibans.
Theocracy where people are executed for watching football is definitely not anarchist's paradise.
Strongest opponents of libertarianism are usually stupid and lazy people who expect the government will decide what's good for them, take care of them and leave them with no responsibility whatsoever, even if that means having total control of their lives.
Sorry, "government thinks for you so that you don't have to" just isn't our motto.
Really, how is this news? While you might take advantage of Facebook as a helpful tool to organize protests, you still need to get out on street.
No government is going to change its policies just because there's a popular group on Facebook against it.
Republican politicians advocate smaller government...except when it comes to invading your personal life.
Well that puts them at least one step ahead of Obama, who doesn't want smaller government and still wants to invade your personal life (first he voted for the Patriot Act, then Telecom immunity bill, and now this). Mod me as troll if you want, but he seems to be greater surveilance freak than average republican.
Regardless, as long as that kid didn't do anything illegal - like making concrete threats to the president - freedom of speech should protect him.
The fact that he's from UK should be irrelevant. He can easily win the appeal at any US court.
I wonder what's going to be next?
Making drunken walking a traffic penalty?
Will people have to purchase pedestrian licenses to walk on streets?
Will wheelchairs have to be equipped with seatbelts?
Indeed, this is not news. My particle physics professor mentioned it in 1998, though I still don't understand how a constant can change, and more importantly, why it does..
If there indeed is no such thing as a soul, then science should be theoretically able to create life out of bunch of atoms through chemical reactions. If that happens, it would be a strong argument against God's existence. But so far, science couldn't create even an amoeba, simplest of all beings. I guess there's a component scientists are missing.
What makes living things living? If we're nothing more than a bunch of atoms and there is no soul, why couldn't a rock become living being? Or perhaps every atom is a living being?
Must be awfully hard to lose an argument when you just decide what the other side thinks and says and declare it to be truth.
But that's what people like George Carlin and Bill Maher love to do when they talk about Christians. It made them very popular among Atheists. Why am I not entitled to use same methods as them?
I am religious (though probably not more than average - but enough to usually defend religion in threads like these) and I'm not offended by your post. I think you made some valid points. But even if all major religions are wrong, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It's just hard to explain His role. God doesn't have to be omnipotent, otherwise He could intervene to stop wars and other disasters (or perhaps He merely doesn't want, why give us free will if He is still going to control our fates?). Perhaps His purpose was only to send things into motion? Perhaps He is the only one who can create life. Science still can't explain from where soul is coming from and what happens with it after death. Neither it can explain reincarnation and there were documented cases of people "remembering" their previous lives.
Also, I wouldn't want to believe in a psychopath God who send all members of different religions to Hell. Such beliefs were common method of spreading religion in times when people were fearful, uneducated and ignorant. Today you're much more unlikely to make a person religious by threatening them with Hell and eternal sufferings.
And I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully as long as each one is minding their own business - science is there to explain the material world, and religion should stick to spiritual stuff.
We're told so by short-sighted people, not by God. Religion isn't about worshipping short-sighted people, it's about worshipping God.
And Heaven (if something along the Christian concept of Heaven exists) might be indeed full of Atheists. I seriously doubt it could be full of people who committed atrocities in the name of God.
Slashdot Mirror
You already have the story, the actors, the dialog, the setpieces, etc.
That's the whole point actually. You have everything needed for a good movie...but we haven't yet seen a movie adaptation of a video game which utilizes all of the above to the best possible extent.
It's on the 3rd spot of Steam's top sellers list right now. Nice PR apparently.
This site stores your viewing preferences in cookies. It is possible to opt out of this in your settings. However, that information will be stored in a cookie.
Do you still wish to opt out?
And don't forget that Google owners don't refer to its users as "dumb fucks".
I don't think baseball is very popular in France, I believe it's a matter of 3 being such a good, decent number.
Somalia is not an anarchy. Sure, they have no national government, but most of the country is run by Islamists who established crazy sharia laws which are no better than those of talibans.
Theocracy where people are executed for watching football is definitely not anarchist's paradise.
Strongest opponents of libertarianism are usually stupid and lazy people who expect the government will decide what's good for them, take care of them and leave them with no responsibility whatsoever, even if that means having total control of their lives.
Sorry, "government thinks for you so that you don't have to" just isn't our motto.
That's 'cause most talented musicians usually aren't in it for the money.
Really, how is this news? While you might take advantage of Facebook as a helpful tool to organize protests, you still need to get out on street.
No government is going to change its policies just because there's a popular group on Facebook against it.
It accidentally the whole death ray!
And I don't need a Blackberry either - problem fixed.
I just love the endless amusement of typing "Is it wrong..." into google and seeing the list (to sleep with my dog/brother/mother).
Well done Google.
And my favourite is: "is it wrong to sleep with your step dad after your mom dies"
Republican politicians advocate smaller government...except when it comes to invading your personal life.
Well that puts them at least one step ahead of Obama, who doesn't want smaller government and still wants to invade your personal life (first he voted for the Patriot Act, then Telecom immunity bill, and now this). Mod me as troll if you want, but he seems to be greater surveilance freak than average republican.
Can you give wayback link to your friend's site? I would like to see it.
Regardless, as long as that kid didn't do anything illegal - like making concrete threats to the president - freedom of speech should protect him.
The fact that he's from UK should be irrelevant. He can easily win the appeal at any US court.
Agreed. This is just going to fuel their hatred.
I wonder what's going to be next?
Making drunken walking a traffic penalty?
Will people have to purchase pedestrian licenses to walk on streets?
Will wheelchairs have to be equipped with seatbelts?
Indeed, this is not news. My particle physics professor mentioned it in 1998, though I still don't understand how a constant can change, and more importantly, why it does..
He specifically mentions "Radical atheists", not atheism in general...
Well that makes him quite different than the typical Internet (slashdot, digg, reddit, you name it) religion-hater.
If there indeed is no such thing as a soul, then science should be theoretically able to create life out of bunch of atoms through chemical reactions. If that happens, it would be a strong argument against God's existence. But so far, science couldn't create even an amoeba, simplest of all beings. I guess there's a component scientists are missing.
What makes living things living? If we're nothing more than a bunch of atoms and there is no soul, why couldn't a rock become living being? Or perhaps every atom is a living being?
Must be awfully hard to lose an argument when you just decide what the other side thinks and says and declare it to be truth.
But that's what people like George Carlin and Bill Maher love to do when they talk about Christians. It made them very popular among Atheists. Why am I not entitled to use same methods as them?
I am religious (though probably not more than average - but enough to usually defend religion in threads like these) and I'm not offended by your post. I think you made some valid points. But even if all major religions are wrong, it still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It's just hard to explain His role. God doesn't have to be omnipotent, otherwise He could intervene to stop wars and other disasters (or perhaps He merely doesn't want, why give us free will if He is still going to control our fates?). Perhaps His purpose was only to send things into motion? Perhaps He is the only one who can create life. Science still can't explain from where soul is coming from and what happens with it after death. Neither it can explain reincarnation and there were documented cases of people "remembering" their previous lives.
Also, I wouldn't want to believe in a psychopath God who send all members of different religions to Hell. Such beliefs were common method of spreading religion in times when people were fearful, uneducated and ignorant. Today you're much more unlikely to make a person religious by threatening them with Hell and eternal sufferings.
And I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully as long as each one is minding their own business - science is there to explain the material world, and religion should stick to spiritual stuff.
Yet we're told to obey it or go to hell...?
We're told so by short-sighted people, not by God. Religion isn't about worshipping short-sighted people, it's about worshipping God.
And Heaven (if something along the Christian concept of Heaven exists) might be indeed full of Atheists. I seriously doubt it could be full of people who committed atrocities in the name of God.
Homophobia as well, the Bible tells us to put homosexuals to death, it's not the work of 'people', it's a commandment from God.
Bible is NOT written by God.
You may think so, but apparently even Dalai Lama isn't too fond of atheists and thinks they are no better than religious extremists.