I absolutely agree. I can't beat Michael Phelps, so I don't deserve a medal. If you can't beat Michael Phelps, you don't deserve a medal either. Fair enough?
Sure, why not? HX Dos Extender supports Win32 binaries and OpenGL. Although it's only software rendering, so I don't think you'd get much in the way of FPS.
The physiological differences of the sexes are so extreme that that would be more detrimental to women than you can possibly imagine.
No, I can imagine them quite well. e.g. No woman has ever been awarded the Field's medal. We don't go out and create a Woman's Field's medal to make women feel better about their lack of mathematics ability. Should we? If so, why?
As wonderful a thing it would be if it were practical, it would only serve to remove women from top level competitions in sports.
Why is that a bad thing if women are in reality unable to compete at the level of top atheletes? Why aren't women offended at being condescended to with special medals for effort and not achievement? Why is "you're good at math, for a girl" an insult, but "you're good at the 100m dash, for a girl" a great accomplishment?
So while the graphics have gotten more detailed, the interactivity has not.
Perhaps ironically, or perhaps not, the games with the richest interactivity often don't have the best graphics. e.g. Nethack. It's all just ascii characters, but you can interact with each and every one of them, in all sorts of combinations.
This is exactly right. Having seperate Olympic games for women is like having a separate Fields medal for women. No woman has ever been awarded the Fields medal for her work in mathematics. Does that mean we should create a woman's Field's medal?
I don't understand why women don't consider the women's events condescending. In any other circumstance, if you tell a woman "you're good at X, for a woman", she'll be offended. But if you hand her a gold medal while saying the same thing, somehow it's OK.
If that's the case, we're not really talking about gender, sex or anything like that at all. We're talking about physical attractiveness. You don't need a test for that.
Cutting research when the economy bad is like eating your feet when you're hungry. Sure, it might make things slightly better in the short term, but now you're stuck in a very bad place with no way to get out.
I don't buy the authoritarian conspiracy theories. It's more about priorities
It's not a conspiracy theory and it is about priorities. Authoritarians don't value knowledge, so they place it at a low priority. Conservatives don't have to meet in secret to hatch a plan to kill science. They just follow their own self interest in not funding people who are likely to oppose them with facts.
currently there is little to no interest in the general populace towards science and research. Just look at what is trending on facebook... People care about sports, taxes, gay marriage, gun laws, Beiber fever, religion, and about 16 other things before they care about scientific research
Exactly, bread and circuses. What else would you expect from an authoritarian anti-intellectual culture?
Or, you know, we could be in the middle of a worldwide financial meltdown where hard decisions have to be made.
All the more reason to keep these steady middle class jobs around so there's more demand for services in the economy. And we're not just talking about scientists. There's support staff, people who repair equipment, companies that manufacture reagents. If you're looking for a "shovel ready" project that will have positive ripple effects throughout the economy, basic research should be at the top of the list.
Governments love to fund scientists, especially when those scientists come to conclusions that convienently give authoritarians the excuse to take more money and power.
In the absence of scientific evidence, authoritarians can do whatever they want. See the War on Drug Users, the TSA. Very few authoritarian initiatives have any sort of scientific basis behind them. Authoritarians rule by fear, and people fear the unknown.
There's an economic downturn. The government is having trouble funding programs. And the fact that they want to cut spending to a program that doesn't have immediate and clearly predictable economic benefit is because they're anti-intellectual?
Basic research provides the greatest ROI of any sort of investment anywhere ever. On top of that, government spending helps to stimulate economies. Creating solid middle class jobs filled by smart, motivated people is exactly the kind of thing that you want to do to get out of a recession.
The next best thing would be if they made Dolphin look, feel, and behave like Thunar. Maybe better would be to throw Dolphin out the fucking window. The way it displays files and directories sucks shite (and NO, none of the Dolphin view options is worth a wet sack of monkey shit). Say what you will about the Windows Explorer look and feel, but Thunar is the most usable of any of the Linux GUI file managers
That's odd, I run XFCE and pop open Dolphin whenever I want some GUI file managment. 99% of the time, Bash does everything I need. For that 1% of the time left, I'm probably doing something that needs 2 panes. Thunar is so simplistic as to be essentially useless, you might as well use the Windows 3.1 File Manager.
I was a Dolphin skeptic back when they first deprecated Konqueror. But they've made it good and featureful, and took the best from both single pane and orthodox file managers. My only regret is that I have to load KDE libs to use it.
This is intentional. They deliberately impoverish the intellectual community so that few will be able to question what government does. If no one has hard data, the government can do what it wants. If hard data is available, the government has to take that into consideration. Behind every anti-intellectual is an authoritarian.
It doesn't have a start button, but it does have the start menu constantly unfurled at the bottom of the screen. At least the start menu goes away when you're not using it, and it doesn't conflate the concepts of program execution and task switching.
And I guarantee any money made from overseas tele licensing wouldn't make up for the lost revenue from royalties.
Why not license the BBC UK instead of BBCA for the same price as BBCA? Anyone who watches BBCA would prefer BBC UK, so you're not losing viewers, probably even gaining them.
That's really egregious. The best thing about KOTOR 1 & 2 was that you could pause the combat and at least approximate a turn based RPG. Action RPGs are twitchy crap for kids.
Slashdot Mirror
How many divisions of bailiffs can the Appeals Court muster?
How many would it take to imprison John Pistole?
I usually don't resort to being this blunt, but that's stupid and rediculous.
Please be as blunt as you need to be, I appreciate it.
We create groups of competitors based off generally level playing fields.
So should we have different basketball matches for tall people and short people? Should we segregate swimming matches by lung capacity? etc, etc.
For the record, I'm a guy. I find not treating half the world's population as subhuman makes for a much more enjoyable life.
I do too. That's why I advocate treating everyone equally.
Fair enough. I'm still not sure why that's not seen as condescending.
I absolutely agree. I can't beat Michael Phelps, so I don't deserve a medal. If you can't beat Michael Phelps, you don't deserve a medal either. Fair enough?
Sure, why not? HX Dos Extender supports Win32 binaries and OpenGL. Although it's only software rendering, so I don't think you'd get much in the way of FPS.
The physiological differences of the sexes are so extreme that that would be more detrimental to women than you can possibly imagine.
No, I can imagine them quite well. e.g. No woman has ever been awarded the Field's medal. We don't go out and create a Woman's Field's medal to make women feel better about their lack of mathematics ability. Should we? If so, why?
As wonderful a thing it would be if it were practical, it would only serve to remove women from top level competitions in sports.
Why is that a bad thing if women are in reality unable to compete at the level of top atheletes? Why aren't women offended at being condescended to with special medals for effort and not achievement? Why is "you're good at math, for a girl" an insult, but "you're good at the 100m dash, for a girl" a great accomplishment?
So while the graphics have gotten more detailed, the interactivity has not.
Perhaps ironically, or perhaps not, the games with the richest interactivity often don't have the best graphics. e.g. Nethack. It's all just ascii characters, but you can interact with each and every one of them, in all sorts of combinations.
It took you two tours at war to figure that out?
In a democracy, your power is determined by your ability to convince other people.
In our democracy, the ability to convice other people is determined by access to the propaganda system.
This is exactly right. Having seperate Olympic games for women is like having a separate Fields medal for women. No woman has ever been awarded the Fields medal for her work in mathematics. Does that mean we should create a woman's Field's medal?
I don't understand why women don't consider the women's events condescending. In any other circumstance, if you tell a woman "you're good at X, for a woman", she'll be offended. But if you hand her a gold medal while saying the same thing, somehow it's OK.
Now we create a women only category because otherwise they aren't represented
Why do we care if women aren't represented? If they are inferior physically, why should they be represented?
If that's the case, we're not really talking about gender, sex or anything like that at all. We're talking about physical attractiveness. You don't need a test for that.
As it is we have separate events for men and women.
That's the problem here. Just let humans compete against other humans and this question solves itself.
And make no mistake, you need to draw that line somewhere, and where ever you draw it there are going to be people who straddle it.
If we draw the line at humanity, who would straddle that line?
Cutting research when the economy bad is like eating your feet when you're hungry. Sure, it might make things slightly better in the short term, but now you're stuck in a very bad place with no way to get out.
So what did we get out of the trillions of dollars spent on the moon landings & research?
We got the best aerospace industry on Earth.
I don't buy the authoritarian conspiracy theories. It's more about priorities
It's not a conspiracy theory and it is about priorities. Authoritarians don't value knowledge, so they place it at a low priority. Conservatives don't have to meet in secret to hatch a plan to kill science. They just follow their own self interest in not funding people who are likely to oppose them with facts.
currently there is little to no interest in the general populace towards science and research. Just look at what is trending on facebook... People care about sports, taxes, gay marriage, gun laws, Beiber fever, religion, and about 16 other things before they care about scientific research
Exactly, bread and circuses. What else would you expect from an authoritarian anti-intellectual culture?
Or, you know, we could be in the middle of a worldwide financial meltdown where hard decisions have to be made.
All the more reason to keep these steady middle class jobs around so there's more demand for services in the economy. And we're not just talking about scientists. There's support staff, people who repair equipment, companies that manufacture reagents. If you're looking for a "shovel ready" project that will have positive ripple effects throughout the economy, basic research should be at the top of the list.
Governments love to fund scientists, especially when those scientists come to conclusions that convienently give authoritarians the excuse to take more money and power.
In the absence of scientific evidence, authoritarians can do whatever they want. See the War on Drug Users, the TSA. Very few authoritarian initiatives have any sort of scientific basis behind them. Authoritarians rule by fear, and people fear the unknown.
Yes, there are two candidates with a realistic chance to win
But only one agenda.
There's an economic downturn. The government is having trouble funding programs. And the fact that they want to cut spending to a program that doesn't have immediate and clearly predictable economic benefit is because they're anti-intellectual?
Basic research provides the greatest ROI of any sort of investment anywhere ever. On top of that, government spending helps to stimulate economies. Creating solid middle class jobs filled by smart, motivated people is exactly the kind of thing that you want to do to get out of a recession.
The next best thing would be if they made Dolphin look, feel, and behave like Thunar. Maybe better would be to throw Dolphin out the fucking window. The way it displays files and directories sucks shite (and NO, none of the Dolphin view options is worth a wet sack of monkey shit). Say what you will about the Windows Explorer look and feel, but Thunar is the most usable of any of the Linux GUI file managers
That's odd, I run XFCE and pop open Dolphin whenever I want some GUI file managment. 99% of the time, Bash does everything I need. For that 1% of the time left, I'm probably doing something that needs 2 panes. Thunar is so simplistic as to be essentially useless, you might as well use the Windows 3.1 File Manager.
I was a Dolphin skeptic back when they first deprecated Konqueror. But they've made it good and featureful, and took the best from both single pane and orthodox file managers. My only regret is that I have to load KDE libs to use it.
This is intentional. They deliberately impoverish the intellectual community so that few will be able to question what government does. If no one has hard data, the government can do what it wants. If hard data is available, the government has to take that into consideration. Behind every anti-intellectual is an authoritarian.
It doesn't have a start button, but it does have the start menu constantly unfurled at the bottom of the screen. At least the start menu goes away when you're not using it, and it doesn't conflate the concepts of program execution and task switching.
No, it just took them 2 years to make their GUI even suckier.
And I guarantee any money made from overseas tele licensing wouldn't make up for the lost revenue from royalties.
Why not license the BBC UK instead of BBCA for the same price as BBCA? Anyone who watches BBCA would prefer BBC UK, so you're not losing viewers, probably even gaining them.
I'm sorry you can't pause combat
That's really egregious. The best thing about KOTOR 1 & 2 was that you could pause the combat and at least approximate a turn based RPG. Action RPGs are twitchy crap for kids.