There are loads of simplified point/click games which work well on a smartphone. There have been a few attempts at serious games but none of them have worked smoothly. Unfortunately the market for mindless games has always dwarfed the market for serious games, so as gamers we're going back into the shadows on the corners of the market.
People in power can and do shape the future, but they can only do so within the bounds of reality. Obama can't make a speech and declare that potato chips are now the cure for cancer. If he wants to shape a future with a cure it will take a " judicious study of discernible reality."
Ignorance might not be something to be ashamed of, but you're going way beyond that. I would explain it to you, but you have already demonstrated that you have no interest in learning.
I think I see the problem. You finished high-school and think that the rest of the world works the same way. You think that scientists are just fitting curves to data so they look nice, and wonder why scientists take so long to get anything done. It's actually a little harder than that.
So you don't like extrapolation. OK, what do you want them to do? Do you want to tune in to the weather and hear him say, "It rained today, but we have no idea what will happen tomorrow!"
Science is all about creating models, so we can know what will happen before it happens and plan for it. If I take some petrol and set fire to it, I can extrapolate what I already know about combustion and tell you what is going to happen. If a climate scientist looks at the composition of an atmosphere with some sun shining on it she can tell you what will happen. Sure, she might not know exactly what temperature it will be, just as I can't tell you exactly where the flame will go, because there are things that can't be measured, but the climate has been trending very close to what the models have been saying since the 70s.
So when this year turns out to be the new hottest and you get your 17-year increase, will you agree that you've been wrong, or will you start to claim that you need an 18-year trend to convince you? Following your line of reasoning also requires ignoring the trends in ocean acidification and the reduced incident light from particulates/sulfates.
Yes, sometimes you need to act like an adult and make decisions, even when one of your options is only marginally better than the other option. The fact that life isn't easy doesn't give you an excuse to fuck over the rest of the planet.
A couple of well placed amendments would certainly make the constitution a lot more bearable as a national model.
If your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what I meant in such a simple sentence, then I'm quite certain you won't understand the constitution either. I am quite interested in what you think the government having "legitimacy" means, though.
There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.
I agree entirely. Acting as though a 200 year old document is sacrosanct is ridiculous, there is no such thing as "natural law", and freedoms must be abridged to have a functional justice system.
From your comment, I'm not entirely convinced that you had 5 IQ points to start with...
YumoolaJohn claimed that "Freedom is more important than safety", and implied that this phrase should make everyone instantly agree that the freedoms removed by the NSA are not acceptable, no matter how much safety they can provide. The AC then made the counter point that this is absurd, because we sacrifice freedom for safety every time we get in a car by wearing a safety harness. Trying to change what was said won't work, making stupid comparisons about baseball players won't work. Moving on and recognizing that there's more than one side to this issue is what we need.
WTF are you listening that isn't talking about any of those things. There's an NSA story here almost as often as as BitCoin story, I hear about Romneycare or unemployment every day. This is actually the first time I've heard the name "Chris Christie"...
Actually, pimps are probably closer to the "licencing" model game companies want to use. Except you agree to the terms up front before you hand over your cash: You want to do X for Y minutes? That'll be $Z. The people complaining are usually the ones who didn't set the terms before they started, just like with games.
You properly own drugs, the dealer gives you your packet, then leaves. If you snort it, stick it up your ass, flush it down the toilet or give it to a homeless person, she won't come back and tell you that you weren't licensed for that use and you owe her extra $$$.
Slashdot Mirror
There are loads of simplified point/click games which work well on a smartphone. There have been a few attempts at serious games but none of them have worked smoothly. Unfortunately the market for mindless games has always dwarfed the market for serious games, so as gamers we're going back into the shadows on the corners of the market.
People in power can and do shape the future, but they can only do so within the bounds of reality. Obama can't make a speech and declare that potato chips are now the cure for cancer. If he wants to shape a future with a cure it will take a " judicious study of discernible reality."
Baseball players won't work either.
Kind of like how the *temporary* tax cuts expired... oh, wait...
Ignorance might not be something to be ashamed of, but you're going way beyond that. I would explain it to you, but you have already demonstrated that you have no interest in learning.
I think I see the problem. You finished high-school and think that the rest of the world works the same way. You think that scientists are just fitting curves to data so they look nice, and wonder why scientists take so long to get anything done. It's actually a little harder than that.
So you don't like extrapolation. OK, what do you want them to do? Do you want to tune in to the weather and hear him say, "It rained today, but we have no idea what will happen tomorrow!"
Science is all about creating models, so we can know what will happen before it happens and plan for it. If I take some petrol and set fire to it, I can extrapolate what I already know about combustion and tell you what is going to happen. If a climate scientist looks at the composition of an atmosphere with some sun shining on it she can tell you what will happen. Sure, she might not know exactly what temperature it will be, just as I can't tell you exactly where the flame will go, because there are things that can't be measured, but the climate has been trending very close to what the models have been saying since the 70s.
So when this year turns out to be the new hottest and you get your 17-year increase, will you agree that you've been wrong, or will you start to claim that you need an 18-year trend to convince you? Following your line of reasoning also requires ignoring the trends in ocean acidification and the reduced incident light from particulates/sulfates.
Yes, sometimes you need to act like an adult and make decisions, even when one of your options is only marginally better than the other option. The fact that life isn't easy doesn't give you an excuse to fuck over the rest of the planet.
B) help developing nations get ahead
Because, of course, we can let those funny-coloured people live the same kind of lifestyle we have, that would just be absurd.
That's disappointing. I was looking forward to random stuff showing up at my door from Amazon.
A couple of well placed amendments would certainly make the constitution a lot more bearable as a national model.
If your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what I meant in such a simple sentence, then I'm quite certain you won't understand the constitution either. I am quite interested in what you think the government having "legitimacy" means, though.
There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.
I agree entirely. Acting as though a 200 year old document is sacrosanct is ridiculous, there is no such thing as "natural law", and freedoms must be abridged to have a functional justice system.
From your comment, I'm not entirely convinced that you had 5 IQ points to start with...
YumoolaJohn claimed that "Freedom is more important than safety", and implied that this phrase should make everyone instantly agree that the freedoms removed by the NSA are not acceptable, no matter how much safety they can provide. The AC then made the counter point that this is absurd, because we sacrifice freedom for safety every time we get in a car by wearing a safety harness. Trying to change what was said won't work, making stupid comparisons about baseball players won't work. Moving on and recognizing that there's more than one side to this issue is what we need.
Show us the 30-year trend of cooling to balance out our trend and we'll listen to you. Until then shut the fuck up.
Mormons, I don't know about. But considering that their entire religious beliefs were literally pulled out of a hat...
I'm intrigued as to where you think other systems of belief come from...
That's what I was hoping for too...
It's not because they don't control the currency. They seize USD all the time.
If I were less lazy I'd take the numbers from this page and make a graph of people dying from warfare over time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
To be fair, America did a fairly good job the first time around.
Yes, there has been complete peace since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.
That's not even all of them, I just got tired of pasting links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#1950.E2.80.93present
WTF are you listening that isn't talking about any of those things. There's an NSA story here almost as often as as BitCoin story, I hear about Romneycare or unemployment every day. This is actually the first time I've heard the name "Chris Christie"...
Yes you missed something.
Actually, pimps are probably closer to the "licencing" model game companies want to use. Except you agree to the terms up front before you hand over your cash: You want to do X for Y minutes? That'll be $Z. The people complaining are usually the ones who didn't set the terms before they started, just like with games.
You properly own drugs, the dealer gives you your packet, then leaves. If you snort it, stick it up your ass, flush it down the toilet or give it to a homeless person, she won't come back and tell you that you weren't licensed for that use and you owe her extra $$$.
I was all excited, like EA Caves was going to be like SimCity, but in a cave, so you're not affected by the cities around you...