That was common, but not universal. The top selling PC game of the 1990s, Myst, was released in 1993 and was Windows only. Even after Windows 95 was released, many Windows games could still be run on 3.x.
Does GoG configure Dosbox with Timidity, FluidSynth, or Munt? For good Midi sound on dosbox you either need a good software synthesizer like the above, or a real hardware midi synth plugged into your computer.
Dosbox does emulate the OPL3 for Adlib/soundblaster compatible FM synth, which is still pretty sweet. IMO, the FM synth in Dosbox is better than some period OPL3 clones, but not as good as a real Yamaha OPL3.
No, you're not missing anything. Anyone who can run Dosbox can run GoG downloads with a small bit effort unpacking their archive.
What would be great is if GoG would distribute some classic Mac games like Marathon or Escape Velocity. Or the 640x480 Mac version of Dark Forces. These games need to be more easily available.
How is this constitutional? Education is speech, and speech is protected. Surely no one in Minnesota has to accept completion of a Coursera course as meaning anything, but they have no right to prevent anyone from taking the course.
I'm not advocating murder over a $.20c credit. I'm advocating murder over the destruction of our justice system. This isn't just about paypal. Every corporation with a terms of service will include these clauses before long. If we don't read every line in every TOS, we'll soon lose access to the courts completely.
That's unfortunate. Because a critical thinker is likely not to stop at religion, but think critically about all of our institutions. Once you do that, you see that essentially everything mainstream society values is worthless at best, and most likely fraudulent. This leads to marginalization and unhappiness.
It's not that there's anything inherently depressing about thinking critically. It's that the society we live in can only be tolerated with large amounts of self-delusion.
That would be fantastic. Single payer is the only sane way to provide health care. Profit has no place in medicine. People were terribly concerned about government death panels deciding who gets care. They fail to notice that insurance companies already do the same thing, and they have incentive to provide as little care as possible.
You realize that Congress is wholly owned by the corporations that benefit from these arbitration clauses, right? Congress will be no help.
No, what we really need is people to extract vigilante justice from the executives of the corporations that have wronged them. A few dead CEOs and they'll be begging to allow us access to the courts.
The public option is not single payer. If Obama had brought single payer to the table, he could have compromised with the blue dogs by taking it off the table in exchange for agreeing to the public option.
I still don't see the fallacy. Lying does have evolutionary benefits. The guy who tells girls what they want to hear, and then moves on to the next girl is going to father more offspring than the guy who is scrupulously honest.
What is the fallacy? Walk me through it step by step.
The answer was, essentially, yes, but that it is now a vestigial trait better served by scientific understanding of the universe.
I'm not sure this is an adequate substitute. A lot of the selective advantage provided by religion is due to social control. If you can rally your people around a god to undertake some cause, you're going to find it easier to amass an army to take over land and resources. That leads to greater replication of whatever gene or genes it was that made your people believe in that god.
I just don't see scientific understanding replacing god as a means of social control. I don't think it would be a good thing if it did. It would be better for everyone if everyone were critical thinkers and harder to convice to go to war. But evolution is not about what's best for everyone, any gene or meme that has a selective advantage will replicate.
Which is entirely consistent with the original sense of 'meme'. Non-technical ideas replicate better than technical ideas do, so it makes sense that the non-technical sense would be far more common, and few people actually know the origin or original meaning of the term.
Fictional doctor House M.D. is famously quoted as saying, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." Is this your experience? If religious people are immune to rational arguments, how do we have a productive discussion with them? How do you impress on a religious person the importance of evidence and reason?
Given that religion is present in every society, and by far the norm in almost every society, it stands to reason that we are genetically disposed to be religious. That would imply that religion has some evolutionary benefits.
Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, what are those benefits, and how can they be provided by a fully secular society?
He tried early on to introduce single payer AKA HillaryCare
When? I paid attention back then, and heard him talk about it during the election. Never since he's been elected though. Single payer advocates were shut out of negotiations about health care reform. There was a great Bill Moyers Journal from early 2009 about the issue. He used single payer to get elected and then abandoned it.
And, I'm sorry, political capital is never a reason not to even try to do the right thing. That's what integrity is all about. But Obama has none. Vote for him and you're part of the problem.
I'd like to see a debate format where the rules require 100% civility
When have the debates been uncivil? Neither candidate is willing to even call his opponent a liar, when they both have unquestionable grounds to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
That was common, but not universal. The top selling PC game of the 1990s, Myst, was released in 1993 and was Windows only. Even after Windows 95 was released, many Windows games could still be run on 3.x.
Which is about as relevant as noting that Doom 3 runs on Windows 7.
And Minnesota residents have the right to decide if actual academic institutions can set up courses (online or otherwise) in their state.
No they don't. Education is speech, and speech is protected by the first amendment.
No one is preventing anyone from taking the course. Coursera is being prevented from offering the courses
That sounds like a distinction without a difference, and one that still falls afoul of prior restraint.
Love that awesome midi sound.
Does GoG configure Dosbox with Timidity, FluidSynth, or Munt? For good Midi sound on dosbox you either need a good software synthesizer like the above, or a real hardware midi synth plugged into your computer.
Dosbox does emulate the OPL3 for Adlib/soundblaster compatible FM synth, which is still pretty sweet. IMO, the FM synth in Dosbox is better than some period OPL3 clones, but not as good as a real Yamaha OPL3.
Dosbox is good enough that it can also run Win 3.1 quite well. Apparently it can also run Windows 95, but that's unsupported and I haven't tried it.
No, you're not missing anything. Anyone who can run Dosbox can run GoG downloads with a small bit effort unpacking their archive.
What would be great is if GoG would distribute some classic Mac games like Marathon or Escape Velocity. Or the 640x480 Mac version of Dark Forces. These games need to be more easily available.
Is there a reason to believe that critical thinking will lead to pleasant conclusions?
We're not too cheap, we're too poor. This is one of the ways that inequality compounds upon itself.
How is this constitutional? Education is speech, and speech is protected. Surely no one in Minnesota has to accept completion of a Coursera course as meaning anything, but they have no right to prevent anyone from taking the course.
I'm not advocating murder over a $.20c credit. I'm advocating murder over the destruction of our justice system. This isn't just about paypal. Every corporation with a terms of service will include these clauses before long. If we don't read every line in every TOS, we'll soon lose access to the courts completely.
That's unfortunate. Because a critical thinker is likely not to stop at religion, but think critically about all of our institutions. Once you do that, you see that essentially everything mainstream society values is worthless at best, and most likely fraudulent. This leads to marginalization and unhappiness.
It's not that there's anything inherently depressing about thinking critically. It's that the society we live in can only be tolerated with large amounts of self-delusion.
That would be fantastic. Single payer is the only sane way to provide health care. Profit has no place in medicine. People were terribly concerned about government death panels deciding who gets care. They fail to notice that insurance companies already do the same thing, and they have incentive to provide as little care as possible.
You realize that Congress is wholly owned by the corporations that benefit from these arbitration clauses, right? Congress will be no help.
No, what we really need is people to extract vigilante justice from the executives of the corporations that have wronged them. A few dead CEOs and they'll be begging to allow us access to the courts.
The public option is not single payer. If Obama had brought single payer to the table, he could have compromised with the blue dogs by taking it off the table in exchange for agreeing to the public option.
I still don't see the fallacy. Lying does have evolutionary benefits. The guy who tells girls what they want to hear, and then moves on to the next girl is going to father more offspring than the guy who is scrupulously honest.
What is the fallacy? Walk me through it step by step.
in others you're quoted without question like a religious prophet.
When does this actually happen? I see the assertion a lot, but I've never seen it happen.
The answer was, essentially, yes, but that it is now a vestigial trait better served by scientific understanding of the universe.
I'm not sure this is an adequate substitute. A lot of the selective advantage provided by religion is due to social control. If you can rally your people around a god to undertake some cause, you're going to find it easier to amass an army to take over land and resources. That leads to greater replication of whatever gene or genes it was that made your people believe in that god.
I just don't see scientific understanding replacing god as a means of social control. I don't think it would be a good thing if it did. It would be better for everyone if everyone were critical thinkers and harder to convice to go to war. But evolution is not about what's best for everyone, any gene or meme that has a selective advantage will replicate.
The term meme has evolved (or devolved) rapidly.
Which is entirely consistent with the original sense of 'meme'. Non-technical ideas replicate better than technical ideas do, so it makes sense that the non-technical sense would be far more common, and few people actually know the origin or original meaning of the term.
Fictional doctor House M.D. is famously quoted as saying, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." Is this your experience? If religious people are immune to rational arguments, how do we have a productive discussion with them? How do you impress on a religious person the importance of evidence and reason?
Given that religion is present in every society, and by far the norm in almost every society, it stands to reason that we are genetically disposed to be religious. That would imply that religion has some evolutionary benefits.
Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, what are those benefits, and how can they be provided by a fully secular society?
He tried early on to introduce single payer AKA HillaryCare
When? I paid attention back then, and heard him talk about it during the election. Never since he's been elected though. Single payer advocates were shut out of negotiations about health care reform. There was a great Bill Moyers Journal from early 2009 about the issue. He used single payer to get elected and then abandoned it.
And, I'm sorry, political capital is never a reason not to even try to do the right thing. That's what integrity is all about. But Obama has none. Vote for him and you're part of the problem.
I would think a better definition of troll will be needed.
No, even with an unequivocal definition of troll, this is still a horrible idea. Government censorship is more harmful than trolling.
Vote whatever third party you desire, or abstain. Voting for either major party is immoral.
I'd like to see a debate format where the rules require 100% civility
When have the debates been uncivil? Neither candidate is willing to even call his opponent a liar, when they both have unquestionable grounds to do so.