Even if he was a selfish, insufferable prick before, he still deserves proper credit for any philanthropy now.
That said, while I could agree that his work may be ostentatious, I find it hard to classify is as self-serving. How does nearly $1Bn towards vaccinations for children benefit Bill? He's no saint, but let's give credit where it is due.
On a related topic, I wish more ads were disabled due to what it knew about me. For example, you might like ads while you are searching for a new bed, and then ALL bedding ads disabled after you had purchased.
My real pet peeve is for ads that really should know better. For example, I get Facebook ads related to my upcoming wedding (cue the/. peanut gallery) because my relationship status is 'engaged', which I like. However, I also still get ads for "the best dating site for singles". If I'm not single, why do they want to advertise to me?
Perhaps the term should be un-targeted ads, directing pointless ads away from me. The advertiser gets better eyeballs on their ad, and I get more relevent ads. Everyone wins.
The Sony system looks a lot more flexible than the MS one and so I have more hope that it can work with a broad range of game types. At least it should have buttons. I'm assuming the MS system is going to have to rely on various gimmicks when you want to select something or fire a weapon or whatever.. I don't want to play a game with an imaginary controller any more than I want to play guitar hero with a theremin (as per the video shown a couple of days ago). "Air" instruments suck.
So, that precludes using Kinect to play a racing game, FPS, or Guitar Hero/Rock Band. What if the game is designed to be played with your body? Is a DDR pad the best controller for a dancing game, or would Kinect be better? You are correct that Kinect will probably be terrible when 'bolted-on' to an existing game, but could be excelent for games where the controller is best for that style. Just like a light-saber game on the Wii.
That said, isn't everyone still waiting for the 'Minority Report'-style UI? Isn't Kinect basically that when used on the dashboard? Thus, isn't the Kinect that is railed on as a gimmick actually the same unassailably cool technology we coveted just a few years ago?
It might not be $150-worth of cool, but we did ask for it. Time will tell if it is worth it or not.
I noticed a similar problem. The issue for my local NBC channel was a channel-number collision (another station was changing channel numbers), so our channel 12 had to reduce its power so as not to interfere with this other channel 12. Add that the NBC channel's antenna was the lowest on the tower, and broadcasting a full order of magnitude lower power, and with a standard that is less tolerant of noise and suddenly it no longer is received.
The worst part is that this change happened the day of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. As a recent transplant to the east coast from Michigan, I was freaking out that I wasn't able to watch the Red Wings (I ended up going to a sports bar). Of course, in Michigan most NBC stations delayed their transition until after the game, to prevent this kind of problem.
Expect leases to go up for bid as in Iraq. This is probably for the best, as competing major nations can buy in rather than fight over the nasty little place.
Of course, when the buy-ins are bribes, it doesn't matter:
Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
So while the proceeds should go toward the people and public projects, it probably won't. Hopefully Kabul can get at least a reasonable handle on corruption and make something good out of this, but it's going to take a lot of work to get there.
In deep submicron part of the reason for the subthreshold leakage problems is control of Leff. (The effective channel length of the FETs.) There's a thing called "line length variation" which means that channel lengths in different parts of the chip will be different, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. Threshold voltage (Vt) is a strong function of channel length, making subthreshold leakage also a strong function of channel length. Performance characteristics will vary widely across the chip, likely much more than conventional transistor operation.
This will make it tough to scale down, (in feature size) scale up, (in chip size) and make manufacturable.
Right, hence why nobody has done it in any quantity yet. I assume this research will find some balancing point where process variation's effect is negligible. For example, if the range for a strong '0' is 0-0.04V and a strong '1' is >0.26V, then you just need to ensure that process variation puts that subthreshold level somewhere between 0.04V and 0.26V, probably significantly so. If process levels can keep that subthreshold level between 0.1V and 0.2V, that might be good enough.
It will be interesting to see the ideal number of line buffers change from being based on transition time to load resistance.
Which made me think about this, and is really probably where this research would have effects: transistors on the edge of a high-potential region, so that even if the transistors are "off", there is more flowing through them than others in the middle of an "off" block.
Right, to further expand on the car analogy, it's like driving the car with only idle and 10% throtle.
Except for some quantum transistors, they are never completely 'off'. Usually 'off' current is several orders of magnitude less than 'on' current, but it's still present. Put another way, the two regions are low resistance and high resistance. The goal is to use the difference between 'high resistance' and 'really high resistance' for 0 and 1 logic.
The added benefit is that this would operate at low voltages. Even if resistance stayed constant, power is proportional to the square of voltage. Again, if resistance stays constant and voltage halves, the power will be 1/4.
The good news for actual musicians? If you already have a MIDI keyboard or MIDI drum set, you can opt for the Rock Band 3 MIDI Pro Adapter Box. The device will convert MIDI messages into console controller data and includes on-board console navigation buttons that will let players navigate the game's menus.
Yeah, it would be nice to be adjustable. Of course, I understand why not, because they need to balance between manufacturability, a decent position for both hi-hat and tom playing, and for both lefties and righties.
That said, with the 3 add-on cymbals, the hi-hat is a little bit to the left of the snare. Not as much as an acoustic kit, but no less than many electronic kits I have seen.
Yea, they haven't talked about the new drum kit at all yet, but i'm certainly hoping for massive improvements. The reason people hold drum sticks poorly when playing the rock band kit is because they basically have to. First off, the pads have a pretty crappy response, forcing you to hit harder than you'd like to get the right response. But more importantly, the damn high hat is on the wrong side of the snare, which makes anything but the most basic rhythms extremely awkward.
While I agree that I hope the drums are better, I disagree on the layout. Since they're at the same height, placing the hi-hat pad to the right of the snare lets you play with your right hand, like you would otherwise. I never had any awkwardness swapping between Rock Band and real drums, and my hands make nearly the same movements.
From my own post: When has pointing out parts of their text being at odds with their proclaimed interpretations ever cause a fundamentalist to reconsider those interpretations ?
Actually, I have reconsidered my interpretations many times, and always based on scripture. Over time I've gone from a more egalitarian viewpoint, to the complementarian interpretation. I'm willing to change my views (I actually recently ordered a book on this very topic called Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition, with the explicit intent of challenging my preconceptions), as long as I think that I was wrong before. Your argument simply wasn't convincing.
All you've done is given your reasons FOR your interpretation ALL of them "well read between the lines" kind of things... while IGNORING the fact that the entire history of the bible it's filled with polygamy as the NORM.
First major assault on those interpretations. This interpretation was a New Testament thing, it didn't exist before.
And you did likewise, claiming that 'the only verse' was that one, because it was the only verse that says 'only one wife' explicitly. Isn't it usually a criticism of Christians that they take a single verse out of context as rationale? I simply pointed out other verses that corroborate the interpretation, beyond the one that you claim is the only teaching on monogamy.
That said, just because polygamy was the norm OT doesn't mean anything. First because many OT characters doing things, or considering it normal, does not mean it isn't a sin (for example, idol worship). Secondly, because Jesus explicitly stated that many of those rules no longer applied, for example just after my verse above from Matthew 19, he upturns the rules for divorce: "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." "
You ignored my other examples of misinterpretation of the SAME text... seems the ONLY thing you actually corrected me on was which book the line occured in, sorry - I stopped going to church a decade ago and my memory isn't 100% perfect.
I'm not going to hassle you for not knowing or remembering something. To be fair, even I had to look it up.
That said, I agree that this verse is misinterpreted if used to prevent unmarried men from becoming deacons. It says 'only one', which tends to mean
In the end, here's what I know. If the church was only 50% as tolerant as Jesus was... we wouldn't be arguing.
The Jesus I read about, he had a prostitute in his entourage, he had one in his ancestry as well - and he calls her a HERO of the faith. He ate with the corrupt tax collectors, and never once speaks out against him in judgement - by simple example he leads a man who impoverishes others to be a force for good in the world.
When the NON-believer comes to him and begs for her child's life, he asks her "should I give hte food meant for the children to the dogs ?"... and he doesn't mean what he is saying. He is asking it to make a point to the Jews around him - that it should NOT work that way.
When she answers "but even the dogs get the crumbs that fall from the table" - she is in my view underestimating what HE feels she deserves, and he responds by giving her exactly what she asked for. No crumbs, the whole deal.
Because unlike the food for the children, he is saying- the love of god does not run out.
Right on. The only point I might expand upon is that at the same time that Jesus did not judge the sinners he spoke with (which is everybody he spoke with, natch), he is still hard-line on sin itself. You are correct that it is a shame that judgment is far too common from the church.
So you see... you really did prove my point for me.
Interestingly, in a list of nearly 30 kinds of couplings that are forbidden, the ONE combination that NEVER occurs is two unmarried and unrelated people. Every single combination is either a direct blood relative, or at least one of the people is married to somebody else.... it never actually prohibits PREMARITAL sex at all...
Right, Levitical Law doesn't make sense as a basis for Christian sexual behavior.
In fact the ENTIRE Christian idea of monogamy and marital-only sex is built on a single line in Paul's letter to the Romans which reads:
"An elder of the Church should be a man of one woman."
That's it. It doesn't actually SAY anything about all the people who are NOT elders, but from that it was surmised that being a man of ONE woman is better.
That's not from Romans, that's both Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2. And wouldn't a requirement for elders (who should be the most upright members of the church) also be a general standard for the rest of the church? Of all the ways Christians should act (monogamous being one), shouldn't the leaders of the church be exceeding on these counts?
And actually, there is an even deeper basis in Genesis 2. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Jesus expands on the interpretation as it relates to marriage and sex in Matthew 19:4-6.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Just afterward, Jesus says "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." If divorce was the only issue, why would he specifically equate remarrying to adultry? It makes more sense that God does not consider a couple divorced if the reason is not for marital unfaithfulness. Thus, the adultry of remarriage would also apply to having more than one wife.
Paul states it again in 1 Corinthians 6.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
So instead we have the commands for two people to be united in one flesh. We also hear that these two should not be separated by man, because God has joined them together.
When taken together, it seems much more likely that monogamy is expected to be the standard, does it not? Perhaps if the verses in Titus and Timothy alone might not be sufficient reason, but they corroborate with many other verses.
um, where exactly in the Bible does it say pre-marital sex is a sin? Heck, as far as I remember, the only sin it mentions involving sex is adultery (multiple references and books), rape (again a few times) and bestiality (Leviticus, I'm fairly sure).
The Bible does talk a bit about fornication (it says NOTHING about fornication being pre-marital - imply that if you will) and says marriage is a cure for immoral behavior (but since they also talk about adultery, not apparently for everyone). Some people read into that and see that as fornication = unmarried sex = immoral behavior = sin, but the Bible does not say that explicitly. Adultery is a major sin, and I have to assume that is because marriage is supposed to be the cure for immoral behavior, and that would be cure fail.
Check 1 Corinthians 7:
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Since this verse implies that sex with someone other than your wife is immoral both before and after the wedding, that seems certain enough for me. We also see Jesus implicate that sex has a binding influence of a person, regardless of marital status, in Matthew 19:4-6.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Paul echoes this again in 1 Corinthians 6.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
So if sex unites the flesh inseperably, regardless of marital status, and the bond is not meant to be broken by man, isn't that a convincing argument against sex with more than one person? That encompases pre-marital, extra-marital, and casual sex.
Anyhow, I can think of a wide range of immoral behavior other than just fornication (lets see... streaking, spin the bottle, drinking and dry humping a bedpost, etc), but some people get hung up on fornicating for some reason.
Right, they forget to read Ephesians 5:
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Personally, I think sex gets focused on primarily because it's a more solid target (easier to explain what 'no sex' is than what 'not be even a hint of sexual immorality' is) and because people need to learn to crawl before they learn to walk (hard to cut out all hints of immorality when people are still sleeping around). It's also harder to live up to that standard, so a lot of people just give up. That doesn't make it alright, just explains why.
but to imagine that everybody will live up to this ideal if you just don't tell them it's fun to fuck... well that's just plain bloody stupid.
I've never seen the tactic of 'shhh, sex isn't any fun, that's why you shouldn't do it' used. I doubt it ever has been, seriously.
The bigger issue is where the goalposts are set. By just saying 'no sex, but anything else is alright' then you set kids up for this kind of a disaster. By that point the kids (or even adults) are too horny, and apart from penetration the end result is the same.
The fact that we're living in a culture where sex is everywhere (count the tits you see on your way to work) also makes it difficult, particularly for the boys who live in a near constant state of arousal. Is it any wonder that one part of getting kids to abstain from sex involves limiting sexual images?
I'm not saying that's not the case. I only argued against using the rhetoric 'creating life' when referring to depictions of casual sex with no reproduction. Make the argument on its own merits (which you are doing), rather than picking and chosing words that detract from an actual debate (which GP did).
The stuff in parenthesis is the worry of the 'parents lobby', I'm not going to try and defend it since I don't necesarily agree with it.
Come on, if you don't want your 14 year old daughter to get pregnant, teach her some responsibility, it's the best way.
I don't disagree.
Hiding to her that sex exists, feels good and people do it will only result in the opposite effect.
I don't think that shielding them from sexual content in movies is equivalent to teaching them healthy attitudes about sex. One can teach about sex effectively without sexy movies, and sexy movies probably aren't the best place for them to learn. Nor is visual sexual stimulation necessary.
So we have two different topics. Nothing in what you said implies that children should see sexual content in movies, only that their parents should educate them about sex.
While if you sucumb to "feeling like wanting sex" doesn't usually harm others, sucumbing to "getting bloodlust" is highly likelly to harm others.
But without specific numbers, you can't say with certainty which is worse. One is commonly found but often causes minimal harm, the other is unlikely but often causes significant harm. It could be a 90% probility of 1% harm (sex), versus a 0.01% probability of 99% harm (violence), in which case sex would be worse in aggregate at 0.9% versus 0.0099% (numbers are complete fabrications, of course).
The GP point still stands: sex (which harms nobody) is taboo while violence (most definitely harmful) is commonplace in cinema and literature.
Even if seeing sex in movies is more likelly to make you want to have sex than seeing violence is likelly to make you want to go on a rampage, that is not a reason to not show sex on movies while still showing violence since even frequent mass-orgies after movies would harm less people than a single individual going on a rampage.
I don't think taboo is the correct word. Taboos are prohibited even from mention, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's just considered 'inappropriate'.
That said, the majority of the lobby against sex in movies is only concerned about showing it to children. It's not about removing sex from movies, it's about rating the properly. Same with violence, though again the sex is considered more likely to provoke imitations.
Bemusing really, isn't it. To objectify the taking of life is commonplace in cinema and literature, but its creation is taboo.
Put like that it sounds a bit silly, but the reality is that most people are more affected by watching sex than by watching violence. All other things being equal, there is a higher chance of you feeling like wanting sex after watching people doing it than the chance of you getting bloodlust after watching violence.
Agreed. I don't think either topic in general reaches the level of 'taboo'. That said, claiming that 'creating life' is the taboo subject ignores both that the content we're talking about is casual sex that doesn't result in reproduction, and that the intent is to limit childrens access to the content (since it's undesirable physiologically and financially for 14 year olds to be pregnant).
That said, at least we KNOW sexual content affects people and makes them want to engage in sexual activities (as anyone who has seen pornography will attest to), while we also know that violent content does not make the vast majority of people want to engage in violent activities (as all of us who played Doom but didn't go on a violent rampage can also attest to). At least if we're going to regulate who can view a type of content, it might as well be the one that actually affects our behavior.
I agree that we could probably have a bunch of this stuff relatively soon. I just think it's not worth betting the farm on this technique that just made it to the lab this week.
I said elsewhere that BP should be busting their ass to get this stuff produced and (just as importantly) determine the most effective way to deploy it. They need all the tools in their belt that they can fit (the number of methods they have taken to stop the gusher are proof they need everything they can get), but it seems most of the people here imagine this would be a silver bullet to fixing the problem.
So yes, let's make BP bust their asses to get this stuff made and deployed around marshes and wetlands to at least protect them.
Say what now? Nylon? Polyethylene? Nothing bad about them at all.
As a rule, it's usually the additives and trace chemicals from production that cause problems. All plastics are large chain molecules (and thus not absorbed by the body) and most are quite stable and do not break into monamers that could very easily (which is why most plastics are not biodegradable, and the very reason they are used).
9 years ago, a great deal of military technology went from lab to massive scale rather quickly for new bombs to wreak havoc in cave strongholds. Why is BP or some other interested party with deep pockets unable to do the same here?
"Rather quickly" is a relative term. We're two months into a disaster that will still be spewing oil until at least August. The majority of the impact and cleanup will be complete by the time this cloth can be deployed in any reasonable amount.
That said, did any military technology go from a prototype in the lab to large-scale deployment in Afghanistan in 2 months? If so, I'd be interested to learn about it. If not, then the military-industrial complex isn't the place you want to look for examples of quick deployment of new technology.
Calling any entrepreneurs...
Entrepeneurs are terrible at this kind of wuick turn work. What you need is an established company who already coats cloths in a polymer. Maybe a diaper manufacturer? They are the only ones who could conceivably get large-scale production up and running soon, and even they will probably need some retooling time. An entrepeneur would need to start by scratch, and almost certainly wouldn't be close to production by the time the well is completely sealed.
BP has more money than God and could easily make it happen if they had the will to do so.
So if one woman can produce a baby in 9 months, 9 women could make a baby in 1 month? Maybe if you only pay them enough?
Having money helps, but there's still a limit on how fast things can happen. Really, to make a significant contribution to cleanup, there would need to be reasonable production (if not relatively large stockpiles) two months ago. You know, before the oil was coming ashore to wetlands and islands.
or rather, they could, if BP hadn't injected all those dispersants making it end up god-knows-where.
Good point, might the dispersant defeat this technique? If it makes the oil dissolve in water, it may no longer be non-polar, and thus no longer repelled.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if he was a selfish, insufferable prick before, he still deserves proper credit for any philanthropy now.
That said, while I could agree that his work may be ostentatious, I find it hard to classify is as self-serving. How does nearly $1Bn towards vaccinations for children benefit Bill? He's no saint, but let's give credit where it is due.
On a related topic, I wish more ads were disabled due to what it knew about me. For example, you might like ads while you are searching for a new bed, and then ALL bedding ads disabled after you had purchased.
My real pet peeve is for ads that really should know better. For example, I get Facebook ads related to my upcoming wedding (cue the /. peanut gallery) because my relationship status is 'engaged', which I like. However, I also still get ads for "the best dating site for singles". If I'm not single, why do they want to advertise to me?
Perhaps the term should be un-targeted ads, directing pointless ads away from me. The advertiser gets better eyeballs on their ad, and I get more relevent ads. Everyone wins.
The Sony system looks a lot more flexible than the MS one and so I have more hope that it can work with a broad range of game types. At least it should have buttons. I'm assuming the MS system is going to have to rely on various gimmicks when you want to select something or fire a weapon or whatever.. I don't want to play a game with an imaginary controller any more than I want to play guitar hero with a theremin (as per the video shown a couple of days ago). "Air" instruments suck.
So, that precludes using Kinect to play a racing game, FPS, or Guitar Hero/Rock Band. What if the game is designed to be played with your body? Is a DDR pad the best controller for a dancing game, or would Kinect be better? You are correct that Kinect will probably be terrible when 'bolted-on' to an existing game, but could be excelent for games where the controller is best for that style. Just like a light-saber game on the Wii.
That said, isn't everyone still waiting for the 'Minority Report'-style UI? Isn't Kinect basically that when used on the dashboard? Thus, isn't the Kinect that is railed on as a gimmick actually the same unassailably cool technology we coveted just a few years ago?
It might not be $150-worth of cool, but we did ask for it. Time will tell if it is worth it or not.
I noticed a similar problem. The issue for my local NBC channel was a channel-number collision (another station was changing channel numbers), so our channel 12 had to reduce its power so as not to interfere with this other channel 12. Add that the NBC channel's antenna was the lowest on the tower, and broadcasting a full order of magnitude lower power, and with a standard that is less tolerant of noise and suddenly it no longer is received.
The worst part is that this change happened the day of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. As a recent transplant to the east coast from Michigan, I was freaking out that I wasn't able to watch the Red Wings (I ended up going to a sports bar). Of course, in Michigan most NBC stations delayed their transition until after the game, to prevent this kind of problem.
Expect leases to go up for bid as in Iraq. This is probably for the best, as competing major nations can buy in rather than fight over the nasty little place.
Of course, when the buy-ins are bribes, it doesn't matter:
Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
So while the proceeds should go toward the people and public projects, it probably won't. Hopefully Kabul can get at least a reasonable handle on corruption and make something good out of this, but it's going to take a lot of work to get there.
In deep submicron part of the reason for the subthreshold leakage problems is control of Leff. (The effective channel length of the FETs.) There's a thing called "line length variation" which means that channel lengths in different parts of the chip will be different, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. Threshold voltage (Vt) is a strong function of channel length, making subthreshold leakage also a strong function of channel length. Performance characteristics will vary widely across the chip, likely much more than conventional transistor operation.
This will make it tough to scale down, (in feature size) scale up, (in chip size) and make manufacturable.
Right, hence why nobody has done it in any quantity yet. I assume this research will find some balancing point where process variation's effect is negligible. For example, if the range for a strong '0' is 0-0.04V and a strong '1' is >0.26V, then you just need to ensure that process variation puts that subthreshold level somewhere between 0.04V and 0.26V, probably significantly so. If process levels can keep that subthreshold level between 0.1V and 0.2V, that might be good enough.
It will be interesting to see the ideal number of line buffers change from being based on transition time to load resistance.
Which made me think about this, and is really probably where this research would have effects: transistors on the edge of a high-potential region, so that even if the transistors are "off", there is more flowing through them than others in the middle of an "off" block.
Right, to further expand on the car analogy, it's like driving the car with only idle and 10% throtle.
Except for some quantum transistors, they are never completely 'off'. Usually 'off' current is several orders of magnitude less than 'on' current, but it's still present. Put another way, the two regions are low resistance and high resistance. The goal is to use the difference between 'high resistance' and 'really high resistance' for 0 and 1 logic.
The added benefit is that this would operate at low voltages. Even if resistance stayed constant, power is proportional to the square of voltage. Again, if resistance stays constant and voltage halves, the power will be 1/4.
Actually, turns out it's a yes:
The good news for actual musicians? If you already have a MIDI keyboard or MIDI drum set, you can opt for the Rock Band 3 MIDI Pro Adapter Box. The device will convert MIDI messages into console controller data and includes on-board console navigation buttons that will let players navigate the game's menus.
Yeah, it would be nice to be adjustable. Of course, I understand why not, because they need to balance between manufacturability, a decent position for both hi-hat and tom playing, and for both lefties and righties.
That said, with the 3 add-on cymbals, the hi-hat is a little bit to the left of the snare. Not as much as an acoustic kit, but no less than many electronic kits I have seen.
Yea, they haven't talked about the new drum kit at all yet, but i'm certainly hoping for massive improvements. The reason people hold drum sticks poorly when playing the rock band kit is because they basically have to. First off, the pads have a pretty crappy response, forcing you to hit harder than you'd like to get the right response. But more importantly, the damn high hat is on the wrong side of the snare, which makes anything but the most basic rhythms extremely awkward.
While I agree that I hope the drums are better, I disagree on the layout. Since they're at the same height, placing the hi-hat pad to the right of the snare lets you play with your right hand, like you would otherwise. I never had any awkwardness swapping between Rock Band and real drums, and my hands make nearly the same movements.
It's only the Guitar Hero drums which have a MIDI input, not the ones made by Harmonix.
No information yet on if they will allow generic MIDI devices as input to the game, although they did confirm the game keyboard will have a MIDI out.
Thanks for proving my point.
From my own post: When has pointing out parts of their text being at odds with their proclaimed interpretations ever cause a fundamentalist to reconsider those interpretations ?
Actually, I have reconsidered my interpretations many times, and always based on scripture. Over time I've gone from a more egalitarian viewpoint, to the complementarian interpretation. I'm willing to change my views (I actually recently ordered a book on this very topic called Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition, with the explicit intent of challenging my preconceptions), as long as I think that I was wrong before. Your argument simply wasn't convincing.
All you've done is given your reasons FOR your interpretation ALL of them "well read between the lines" kind of things... while IGNORING the fact that the entire history of the bible it's filled with polygamy as the NORM. First major assault on those interpretations. This interpretation was a New Testament thing, it didn't exist before.
And you did likewise, claiming that 'the only verse' was that one, because it was the only verse that says 'only one wife' explicitly. Isn't it usually a criticism of Christians that they take a single verse out of context as rationale? I simply pointed out other verses that corroborate the interpretation, beyond the one that you claim is the only teaching on monogamy.
That said, just because polygamy was the norm OT doesn't mean anything. First because many OT characters doing things, or considering it normal, does not mean it isn't a sin (for example, idol worship). Secondly, because Jesus explicitly stated that many of those rules no longer applied, for example just after my verse above from Matthew 19, he upturns the rules for divorce: "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." "
You ignored my other examples of misinterpretation of the SAME text... seems the ONLY thing you actually corrected me on was which book the line occured in, sorry - I stopped going to church a decade ago and my memory isn't 100% perfect.
I'm not going to hassle you for not knowing or remembering something. To be fair, even I had to look it up.
That said, I agree that this verse is misinterpreted if used to prevent unmarried men from becoming deacons. It says 'only one', which tends to mean
In the end, here's what I know. If the church was only 50% as tolerant as Jesus was... we wouldn't be arguing.
The Jesus I read about, he had a prostitute in his entourage, he had one in his ancestry as well - and he calls her a HERO of the faith. He ate with the corrupt tax collectors, and never once speaks out against him in judgement - by simple example he leads a man who impoverishes others to be a force for good in the world.
When the NON-believer comes to him and begs for her child's life, he asks her "should I give hte food meant for the children to the dogs ?"... and he doesn't mean what he is saying. He is asking it to make a point to the Jews around him - that it should NOT work that way. When she answers "but even the dogs get the crumbs that fall from the table" - she is in my view underestimating what HE feels she deserves, and he responds by giving her exactly what she asked for. No crumbs, the whole deal.
Because unlike the food for the children, he is saying- the love of god does not run out.
Right on. The only point I might expand upon is that at the same time that Jesus did not judge the sinners he spoke with (which is everybody he spoke with, natch), he is still hard-line on sin itself. You are correct that it is a shame that judgment is far too common from the church.
So you see... you really did prove my point for me.
Interestingly, in a list of nearly 30 kinds of couplings that are forbidden, the ONE combination that NEVER occurs is two unmarried and unrelated people. Every single combination is either a direct blood relative, or at least one of the people is married to somebody else.... it never actually prohibits PREMARITAL sex at all...
Right, Levitical Law doesn't make sense as a basis for Christian sexual behavior.
In fact the ENTIRE Christian idea of monogamy and marital-only sex is built on a single line in Paul's letter to the Romans which reads: "An elder of the Church should be a man of one woman." That's it. It doesn't actually SAY anything about all the people who are NOT elders, but from that it was surmised that being a man of ONE woman is better.
That's not from Romans, that's both Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2. And wouldn't a requirement for elders (who should be the most upright members of the church) also be a general standard for the rest of the church? Of all the ways Christians should act (monogamous being one), shouldn't the leaders of the church be exceeding on these counts?
And actually, there is an even deeper basis in Genesis 2. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Jesus expands on the interpretation as it relates to marriage and sex in Matthew 19:4-6.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Just afterward, Jesus says "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." If divorce was the only issue, why would he specifically equate remarrying to adultry? It makes more sense that God does not consider a couple divorced if the reason is not for marital unfaithfulness. Thus, the adultry of remarriage would also apply to having more than one wife.
Paul states it again in 1 Corinthians 6.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
So instead we have the commands for two people to be united in one flesh. We also hear that these two should not be separated by man, because God has joined them together.
When taken together, it seems much more likely that monogamy is expected to be the standard, does it not? Perhaps if the verses in Titus and Timothy alone might not be sufficient reason, but they corroborate with many other verses.
um, where exactly in the Bible does it say pre-marital sex is a sin? Heck, as far as I remember, the only sin it mentions involving sex is adultery (multiple references and books), rape (again a few times) and bestiality (Leviticus, I'm fairly sure).
The Bible does talk a bit about fornication (it says NOTHING about fornication being pre-marital - imply that if you will) and says marriage is a cure for immoral behavior (but since they also talk about adultery, not apparently for everyone). Some people read into that and see that as fornication = unmarried sex = immoral behavior = sin, but the Bible does not say that explicitly. Adultery is a major sin, and I have to assume that is because marriage is supposed to be the cure for immoral behavior, and that would be cure fail.
Check 1 Corinthians 7:
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Since this verse implies that sex with someone other than your wife is immoral both before and after the wedding, that seems certain enough for me. We also see Jesus implicate that sex has a binding influence of a person, regardless of marital status, in Matthew 19:4-6.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Paul echoes this again in 1 Corinthians 6.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
So if sex unites the flesh inseperably, regardless of marital status, and the bond is not meant to be broken by man, isn't that a convincing argument against sex with more than one person? That encompases pre-marital, extra-marital, and casual sex.
Anyhow, I can think of a wide range of immoral behavior other than just fornication (lets see... streaking, spin the bottle, drinking and dry humping a bedpost, etc), but some people get hung up on fornicating for some reason.
Right, they forget to read Ephesians 5:
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Personally, I think sex gets focused on primarily because it's a more solid target (easier to explain what 'no sex' is than what 'not be even a hint of sexual immorality' is) and because people need to learn to crawl before they learn to walk (hard to cut out all hints of immorality when people are still sleeping around). It's also harder to live up to that standard, so a lot of people just give up. That doesn't make it alright, just explains why.
but to imagine that everybody will live up to this ideal if you just don't tell them it's fun to fuck... well that's just plain bloody stupid.
I've never seen the tactic of 'shhh, sex isn't any fun, that's why you shouldn't do it' used. I doubt it ever has been, seriously.
The bigger issue is where the goalposts are set. By just saying 'no sex, but anything else is alright' then you set kids up for this kind of a disaster. By that point the kids (or even adults) are too horny, and apart from penetration the end result is the same.
The fact that we're living in a culture where sex is everywhere (count the tits you see on your way to work) also makes it difficult, particularly for the boys who live in a near constant state of arousal. Is it any wonder that one part of getting kids to abstain from sex involves limiting sexual images?
I'm not saying that's not the case. I only argued against using the rhetoric 'creating life' when referring to depictions of casual sex with no reproduction. Make the argument on its own merits (which you are doing), rather than picking and chosing words that detract from an actual debate (which GP did).
The stuff in parenthesis is the worry of the 'parents lobby', I'm not going to try and defend it since I don't necesarily agree with it.
Come on, if you don't want your 14 year old daughter to get pregnant, teach her some responsibility, it's the best way.
I don't disagree.
Hiding to her that sex exists, feels good and people do it will only result in the opposite effect.
I don't think that shielding them from sexual content in movies is equivalent to teaching them healthy attitudes about sex. One can teach about sex effectively without sexy movies, and sexy movies probably aren't the best place for them to learn. Nor is visual sexual stimulation necessary.
So we have two different topics. Nothing in what you said implies that children should see sexual content in movies, only that their parents should educate them about sex.
While if you sucumb to "feeling like wanting sex" doesn't usually harm others, sucumbing to "getting bloodlust" is highly likelly to harm others.
But without specific numbers, you can't say with certainty which is worse. One is commonly found but often causes minimal harm, the other is unlikely but often causes significant harm. It could be a 90% probility of 1% harm (sex), versus a 0.01% probability of 99% harm (violence), in which case sex would be worse in aggregate at 0.9% versus 0.0099% (numbers are complete fabrications, of course).
The GP point still stands: sex (which harms nobody) is taboo while violence (most definitely harmful) is commonplace in cinema and literature.
Even if seeing sex in movies is more likelly to make you want to have sex than seeing violence is likelly to make you want to go on a rampage, that is not a reason to not show sex on movies while still showing violence since even frequent mass-orgies after movies would harm less people than a single individual going on a rampage.
I don't think taboo is the correct word. Taboos are prohibited even from mention, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's just considered 'inappropriate'.
That said, the majority of the lobby against sex in movies is only concerned about showing it to children. It's not about removing sex from movies, it's about rating the properly. Same with violence, though again the sex is considered more likely to provoke imitations.
Bemusing really, isn't it. To objectify the taking of life is commonplace in cinema and literature, but its creation is taboo.
Put like that it sounds a bit silly, but the reality is that most people are more affected by watching sex than by watching violence. All other things being equal, there is a higher chance of you feeling like wanting sex after watching people doing it than the chance of you getting bloodlust after watching violence.
Agreed. I don't think either topic in general reaches the level of 'taboo'. That said, claiming that 'creating life' is the taboo subject ignores both that the content we're talking about is casual sex that doesn't result in reproduction, and that the intent is to limit childrens access to the content (since it's undesirable physiologically and financially for 14 year olds to be pregnant).
That said, at least we KNOW sexual content affects people and makes them want to engage in sexual activities (as anyone who has seen pornography will attest to), while we also know that violent content does not make the vast majority of people want to engage in violent activities (as all of us who played Doom but didn't go on a violent rampage can also attest to). At least if we're going to regulate who can view a type of content, it might as well be the one that actually affects our behavior.
It's hard to tell how much to trust someone as a science/chemistry source then they can't spell monOmer.
Oops, my bad.
What about ACs who can't spell 'when' ;)
I agree that we could probably have a bunch of this stuff relatively soon. I just think it's not worth betting the farm on this technique that just made it to the lab this week.
I said elsewhere that BP should be busting their ass to get this stuff produced and (just as importantly) determine the most effective way to deploy it. They need all the tools in their belt that they can fit (the number of methods they have taken to stop the gusher are proof they need everything they can get), but it seems most of the people here imagine this would be a silver bullet to fixing the problem.
So yes, let's make BP bust their asses to get this stuff made and deployed around marshes and wetlands to at least protect them.
Oh, they're all bad.
Say what now? Nylon? Polyethylene? Nothing bad about them at all.
As a rule, it's usually the additives and trace chemicals from production that cause problems. All plastics are large chain molecules (and thus not absorbed by the body) and most are quite stable and do not break into monamers that could very easily (which is why most plastics are not biodegradable, and the very reason they are used).
9 years ago, a great deal of military technology went from lab to massive scale rather quickly for new bombs to wreak havoc in cave strongholds. Why is BP or some other interested party with deep pockets unable to do the same here?
"Rather quickly" is a relative term. We're two months into a disaster that will still be spewing oil until at least August. The majority of the impact and cleanup will be complete by the time this cloth can be deployed in any reasonable amount.
That said, did any military technology go from a prototype in the lab to large-scale deployment in Afghanistan in 2 months? If so, I'd be interested to learn about it. If not, then the military-industrial complex isn't the place you want to look for examples of quick deployment of new technology.
Calling any entrepreneurs...
Entrepeneurs are terrible at this kind of wuick turn work. What you need is an established company who already coats cloths in a polymer. Maybe a diaper manufacturer? They are the only ones who could conceivably get large-scale production up and running soon, and even they will probably need some retooling time. An entrepeneur would need to start by scratch, and almost certainly wouldn't be close to production by the time the well is completely sealed.
BP has more money than God and could easily make it happen if they had the will to do so.
So if one woman can produce a baby in 9 months, 9 women could make a baby in 1 month? Maybe if you only pay them enough?
Having money helps, but there's still a limit on how fast things can happen. Really, to make a significant contribution to cleanup, there would need to be reasonable production (if not relatively large stockpiles) two months ago. You know, before the oil was coming ashore to wetlands and islands.
or rather, they could, if BP hadn't injected all those dispersants making it end up god-knows-where.
Good point, might the dispersant defeat this technique? If it makes the oil dissolve in water, it may no longer be non-polar, and thus no longer repelled.