no, I like games and fantasy that takes me as far from reality as possible. It's the violent blood fantasy that is, to me, wasted escapism. It's in response to stimula that could be better spent in activism against whatever is instilling the anger in the first place.
It was said that Religion is the Opiate of the Masses. It just made the medievil European feel better about their oppression... how cruel to take it from them... but then, they are better off without it, imo. Better to face reality and address the problems. I wouldn't want to make these games illegal. But I would want to remove the illusion that it's sane and sensible and meaninglessly innocent play. It's a symptom of culture stress, of unsafe living environments, of hostile work conditions.
you could quit... or go ahead, play a video game to relieve your stress. But that doesn't make it a healthy situation. Sometimes an opiate is good. But it's also good to get to the root of problems, if you want a long term solution.
These type of games are not the cause of a problem, but they sure as hell are the symptom of one. imho, of course.
and puss filled vesicles are great because they don't actually give you small pox, they just result from it...!
Overt and thorough violence in video games is the sign of a sick society. The violence is coming into the games from the real (very violent) world, not the other way around.
But see, that is a connection, there is a relation.
yes, it's "better". But you only confirm with your example that the need stems from basic pent up slave-emotion.
I mean, would it be better if such a boss was fired?
When you play a game to expell a little of this sort of energy, the result is that you are then calmed, and thereby made the perfect victim, in real life, for that idiot boss to keep abusing! That's my point.
don't you realize that slaves need violent catharsis... you probably think the roman colloseum was bad too...
I agree with you. This stuff is pathetic. Making it illegal won't make society better. Asking "why is this the catharsis these kids choose" might, however.
In general, I don't mind violence in some video games, it's utter domination of the media is really really sad, however.
Please, don't anyone bother to point me at non-violent games... try getting a job in the game industry and find out that 99% of them are making this kind of junk.
And yeah yeah, I know, you love the game but would never do that in real life... so? I hate the game and wouldn't do it in real life either. Why would you want to phantasize about something you would not do in real life, again? Why does it make you feel good?
I think the real sign of wealth (besides how many times you can buy the library of congress) is this:
Bill Gates is actually Rich Enough to build and travel to his own Moon Base.
The interesting thing about people that get that rich is: they don't want to go to the moon or mars. Afraid of attracting the attention of Bond, James Bond, perhaps?
(1) The statistic was made assuming covering every bit of space on the earth. I bet that if only 1 in every 10 square feet was occupied by nuclear waste, that would already be a little problematic. I fact, if 1 out of ever 1000 square feet had nuclear waste, that would be a catastrophe. The poster shows a meaningless statistic.
(2) Vast areas of unpopulated area are necessarry to support life! Oxygen is produced there, for example.
(3) If mankind would just stop killing things that can be saved (like the forests, which can be sustainably logged but which were cut down and killed) then you can start killing the fungus in PA. But until then a lot of people need to wake up and realize. People with a sense of preservation and care are better able to decide when it's necessarry to put a road through a swamp. Mankind has not been careful.
(4) Sometimes you have to give yourself some moral limits of what you do because it's easier. You have to decide if there is another way. Unfortunately mankind has shown a couple thousand years of taking the easy way, not the long term way, immediate over intelligent. At one quite recent point in history, if you needed more land, it was quite acceptable to send your military in to take it from your neighbor. The only question was, were you able. Now that's appropriately considered impolite. Now you might have to use your own space better, even if the other country has a smaller military. (in most cases). I prefer this.
Reactionary and rabid environmentalists are reasting to a level of disregard for the environment that borders on the hateful, I mean, the last redwoods in some california groves were proudly cut down! We had redwoods felled so big they were unuseable, they splintered as they struck, the loggers knew this, but were proud, circa 1887 just to say, "look what I felled". Man's desire to feel powerful has been expressed by killing the environment! Deny it if you can, but it is true. Having said that, I expect man to impact the environment, but I'm not an easy sell that something has to happen just because I'm told.
NO: I don't think we have to pollute the environment with carbon monoxide in order to have cars, there are many fuels that do not create carbon monoxide. It's hard to breath in cities these days... that's not because of environmentalists... there are a lot of reasons to create green technology. And it's not always more expensive.
If people want environmentalism to become more civil, anti-environmentatlism has to become more civil.
Is it civil now? No, I have people try to explain that logging in the North West, a bread and butter industry for a hundred years and more, is killed because people are trying to save an owl... look! they say, the owl is living on the roof of this seven eleven. The truth: the logging industry in the pacific northwest is dying because of overlogging, killing whole forests so no more trees grow, so fifty years later instead of more trees to take, you have nothing. Corporations are not managing our nations assets well. Forget saving fungus, think managing renewable resources. No really, please think about it... we need to solve this dillema.
But remember: technology and environmentalism are not opposed, in fact, technology allows us to control our impact and use of the environment cleanly. Those that argue otherwise have ulterior motives.
his statistics include covering every bit of land and ocean on the earth to the depth of a few thousand feet. Sounds like you don't understand how to read for cooked statistics!
I think it's more sensible to use solar energy collected at sea to generate hydrogen, which you primarily use to generate electricity.
I don't think technology has to be poisonous. If there is a way to use the radioactive byproducts, that would be one thing, but it's only a matter of time. Our species should survive millions of years, theoretically, it's a very young species, look at a timeline and you will see million year rise and falls of dinosaurs and mankind is just at the start of such a step. If you have nuclear energy you obviously have to look hard for another source. Many communities are holding out for that something because actually there are lots of other energy sources. A new nuclear power plant is not exactly cheap, and perhaps that money can be put to best use some other way.
>I guess I should have phrased the question "on what grounds can an atheist believe in freewill". I have argued with many atheists that do believe in freewill, but they are unable to provide a scientific explanation for it. Freewill and materialism contradict each other.
I do not know of any physical explanation for "free will", in fact, most definitions tend toward the circular, perhaps you have a consice one to offer?
Still, I think there is much of promise to explain the phenomenon called "free will". The essential question is "Is the sensation of free will an illusion?". That is, one has to at least consider the possibility that we are determined phenomenon, like water running down hill and the notion of free will is a sensation that we are controlling something that we are really just experiencing.
But modern physics provides larger opportunities for free will. Specifically the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle argues for "randomism". I propose that random and "chosen" is just a matter of point of view anyway, and indistinguishable.
Also Quantum Theory has certain confusing aspects, that really look as though all possible chains of event occur simultaneously... in this model, "free will" is the phenomenon of tracing out a particular path among the network of possible events.
Do you have a religious explanation/justification of a belief in free will?
Most people that believe in atheism do not understand its logical consequences.
BTW: I am generalizing atheists as materialists. This is not always accurate, although I have found it to be true 99% of the time.
The other reply explains better than I would about religion on the question of free except to say it's clearly on both sides like philosophy.
Of course an atheist can believe in free will, or not. You do not need a God in order have free will, you are as likely to have it yourself as for there to be a God to give it to you. An atheist will go with the evidence like anyone will, given time.
A God or god hypothesis really isn't needed to support any of the valid moral or philosophic principles that it traditionally embodies.
Having said this, don't think I discount or disbelieve your God. And I have seen that people can use religion to find a better life, attitude and world view for themselves, which is more important than any other consideration. Still, I prefer the traditional philosophical approach, which is to justify atheistically any traditional artifice you wich to maintain.
the religious ideals this country is based on are that there are no religious ideals this country is based on. If you don't like it, then you don't have to leave.
the person that doesn't think so will be running their office apps on their 100 Ghz machine and say, "look, fast enough", the person that does think so will be running a complete simulation of a galaxy at 1,000,000 yrs/s.
"Fast enough" is subjective opinion, a feeling, an intuition, biased by expectation. All that matters is relative speed and relative efficiency and the stability of the code in the end, and of course the ease of development. C and C++ increase flexibility without reducing ability. This means you are still able to seg fault, but it also means you are free to anything-else too. And I like Java, but the VM will always be compiled, remember that! (well, always... until it's put on a chip and made into a ubiquitous coprocessor )
I made the client for Spinner, I guessed they would be paying about this much or more, I know when I was there this rate would have easily cost us about 250,000$/yr. Yike! Don't know where you are, but how many major internet radio companies are there?
I understand the concerns, but I think it's a part of the net, a good part, that we have to wrap our minds around.
Especially when you mention Usenet archives, which are (ok, get ready to laugh) historically important. I'm not kidding! There is a little signal in there, it's a cultural brain dump, and that's of historic interest.
I think the rub is, if the archive presents the data exactly as you presented it (that is, it doesn't play with your content, present it in a frame or otherwise embed it as their own content), then it is a fair archive, a ghost of your site still walking the internet. There is no taking it back once you post it.
I assume the poster thinks most of the bugs are not serious, and they are willing to just not see them all. I mean, if these are fatal bugs then there is no question, you need to find them.
So I say, be happy if you have a list of thousands of bugs... just prioritize them and possibly decide which ones will be "In the Shipping Version".
I remember a time, from ancient history, when there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse... much less "trust them, they are the government" rhetoric was heard at that time!
Did it occur to you these laws will be in place the next time a Democrat is elected?
If you don't buy Gates' ad-hocking promises of redemption there are other solutions, like creating a programming language that forces good code;
Or a better bet would to just find the Fountain of Youth so you can drink it's water, stay forever young, and then you'll have plenty of time to fix the bugs in the real languages.
Slashdot Mirror
no, I like games and fantasy that takes me as far from reality as possible. It's the violent blood fantasy that is, to me, wasted escapism. It's in response to stimula that could be better spent in activism against whatever is instilling the anger in the first place.
It was said that Religion is the Opiate of the Masses. It just made the medievil European feel better about their oppression... how cruel to take it from them... but then, they are better off without it, imo. Better to face reality and address the problems. I wouldn't want to make these games illegal. But I would want to remove the illusion that it's sane and sensible and meaninglessly innocent play. It's a symptom of culture stress, of unsafe living environments, of hostile work conditions.
you could quit... or go ahead, play a video game to relieve your stress. But that doesn't make it a healthy situation. Sometimes an opiate is good. But it's also good to get to the root of problems, if you want a long term solution.
These type of games are not the cause of a problem, but they sure as hell are the symptom of one. imho, of course.
and puss filled vesicles are great because they don't actually give you small pox, they just result from it...!
Overt and thorough violence in video games is the sign of a sick society. The violence is coming into the games from the real (very violent) world, not the other way around.
But see, that is a connection, there is a relation.
yes, it's "better". But you only confirm with your example that the need stems from basic pent up slave-emotion.
I mean, would it be better if such a boss was fired?
When you play a game to expell a little of this sort of energy, the result is that you are then calmed, and thereby made the perfect victim, in real life, for that idiot boss to keep abusing! That's my point.
don't you realize that slaves need violent catharsis... you probably think the roman colloseum was bad too...
I agree with you. This stuff is pathetic. Making it illegal won't make society better. Asking "why is this the catharsis these kids choose" might, however.
In general, I don't mind violence in some video games, it's utter domination of the media is really really sad, however.
Please, don't anyone bother to point me at non-violent games... try getting a job in the game industry and find out that 99% of them are making this kind of junk.
And yeah yeah, I know, you love the game but would never do that in real life... so? I hate the game and wouldn't do it in real life either. Why would you want to phantasize about something you would not do in real life, again? Why does it make you feel good?
Pent up slave-resentment is my Nietzschean Guess.
I agree totally, we should be able to vote on the details of all that other stuff as well.
In fact, fire congress and just have direct democracy right now.
That's not the same thing.
That's like saying the line item veto is the same thing as the veto power the president has always had. Granularity is sufficient for distinction.
I think the real sign of wealth (besides how many times you can buy the library of congress) is this:
Bill Gates is actually Rich Enough to build and travel to his own Moon Base.
The interesting thing about people that get that rich is: they don't want to go to the moon or mars. Afraid of attracting the attention of Bond, James Bond, perhaps?
the next one is going to be The Blocking Out The Sun Space Telescope.
... it's better than arresting you.
(1) The statistic was made assuming covering every bit of space on the earth. I bet that if only 1 in every 10 square feet was occupied by nuclear waste, that would already be a little problematic. I fact, if 1 out of ever 1000 square feet had nuclear waste, that would be a catastrophe. The poster shows a meaningless statistic.
(2) Vast areas of unpopulated area are necessarry to support life! Oxygen is produced there, for example.
(3) If mankind would just stop killing things that can be saved (like the forests, which can be sustainably logged but which were cut down and killed) then you can start killing the fungus in PA. But until then a lot of people need to wake up and realize. People with a sense of preservation and care are better able to decide when it's necessarry to put a road through a swamp. Mankind has not been careful.
(4) Sometimes you have to give yourself some moral limits of what you do because it's easier. You have to decide if there is another way. Unfortunately mankind has shown a couple thousand years of taking the easy way, not the long term way, immediate over intelligent. At one quite recent point in history, if you needed more land, it was quite acceptable to send your military in to take it from your neighbor. The only question was, were you able. Now that's appropriately considered impolite. Now you might have to use your own space better, even if the other country has a smaller military. (in most cases). I prefer this.
Reactionary and rabid environmentalists are reasting to a level of disregard for the environment that borders on the hateful, I mean, the last redwoods in some california groves were proudly cut down! We had redwoods felled so big they were unuseable, they splintered as they struck, the loggers knew this, but were proud, circa 1887 just to say, "look what I felled". Man's desire to feel powerful has been expressed by killing the environment! Deny it if you can, but it is true. Having said that, I expect man to impact the environment, but I'm not an easy sell that something has to happen just because I'm told.
NO: I don't think we have to pollute the environment with carbon monoxide in order to have cars, there are many fuels that do not create carbon monoxide. It's hard to breath in cities these days... that's not because of environmentalists... there are a lot of reasons to create green technology. And it's not always more expensive.
If people want environmentalism to become more civil, anti-environmentatlism has to become more civil.
Is it civil now? No, I have people try to explain that logging in the North West, a bread and butter industry for a hundred years and more, is killed because people are trying to save an owl... look! they say, the owl is living on the roof of this seven eleven. The truth: the logging industry in the pacific northwest is dying because of overlogging, killing whole forests so no more trees grow, so fifty years later instead of more trees to take, you have nothing. Corporations are not managing our nations assets well. Forget saving fungus, think managing renewable resources. No really, please think about it... we need to solve this dillema.
But remember: technology and environmentalism are not opposed, in fact, technology allows us to control our impact and use of the environment cleanly. Those that argue otherwise have ulterior motives.
his statistics include covering every bit of land and ocean on the earth to the depth of a few thousand feet. Sounds like you don't understand how to read for cooked statistics!
it sounds like you plan to cover every inch of the earth in radioactive waste.
I think it's more sensible to use solar energy collected at sea to generate hydrogen, which you primarily use to generate electricity.
I don't think technology has to be poisonous. If there is a way to use the radioactive byproducts, that would be one thing, but it's only a matter of time. Our species should survive millions of years, theoretically, it's a very young species, look at a timeline and you will see million year rise and falls of dinosaurs and mankind is just at the start of such a step. If you have nuclear energy you obviously have to look hard for another source. Many communities are holding out for that something because actually there are lots of other energy sources. A new nuclear power plant is not exactly cheap, and perhaps that money can be put to best use some other way.
the text:
Most people that believe in atheism do not understand its logical consequences.
BTW: I am generalizing atheists as materialists. This is not always accurate, although I have found it to be true 99% of the time.
should have been quoted.
>I guess I should have phrased the question "on what grounds can an atheist believe in freewill". I have argued with many atheists that do believe in freewill, but they are unable to provide a scientific explanation for it. Freewill and materialism contradict each other.
I do not know of any physical explanation for "free will", in fact, most definitions tend toward the circular, perhaps you have a consice one to offer?
Still, I think there is much of promise to explain the phenomenon called "free will". The essential question is "Is the sensation of free will an illusion?". That is, one has to at least consider the possibility that we are determined phenomenon, like water running down hill and the notion of free will is a sensation that we are controlling something that we are really just experiencing.
But modern physics provides larger opportunities for free will. Specifically the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle argues for "randomism". I propose that random and "chosen" is just a matter of point of view anyway, and indistinguishable.
Also Quantum Theory has certain confusing aspects, that really look as though all possible chains of event occur simultaneously... in this model, "free will" is the phenomenon of tracing out a particular path among the network of possible events.
Do you have a religious explanation/justification of a belief in free will?
Most people that believe in atheism do not understand its logical consequences.
BTW: I am generalizing atheists as materialists. This is not always accurate, although I have found it to be true 99% of the time.
It was and remains based on multiculteralism.
The other reply explains better than I would about religion on the question of free except to say it's clearly on both sides like philosophy.
Of course an atheist can believe in free will, or not. You do not need a God in order have free will, you are as likely to have it yourself as for there to be a God to give it to you. An atheist will go with the evidence like anyone will, given time.
A God or god hypothesis really isn't needed to support any of the valid moral or philosophic principles that it traditionally embodies.
Having said this, don't think I discount or disbelieve your God. And I have seen that people can use religion to find a better life, attitude and world view for themselves, which is more important than any other consideration. Still, I prefer the traditional philosophical approach, which is to justify atheistically any traditional artifice you wich to maintain.
Yes, I always wondered who "Richard Stands" was... and why was the republic for Richard Stands and not the whole lot of us? Who is this guy!?
the religious ideals this country is based on are that there are no religious ideals this country is based on. If you don't like it, then you don't have to leave.
relative speed will always matter...
the person that doesn't think so will be running their office apps on their 100 Ghz machine and say, "look, fast enough", the person that does think so will be running a complete simulation of a galaxy at 1,000,000 yrs/s.
"Fast enough" is subjective opinion, a feeling, an intuition, biased by expectation. All that matters is relative speed and relative efficiency and the stability of the code in the end, and of course the ease of development. C and C++ increase flexibility without reducing ability. This means you are still able to seg fault, but it also means you are free to anything-else too. And I like Java, but the VM will always be compiled, remember that! (well, always... until it's put on a chip and made into a ubiquitous coprocessor )
I made the client for Spinner, I guessed they would be paying about this much or more, I know when I was there this rate would have easily cost us about 250,000$/yr. Yike! Don't know where you are, but how many major internet radio companies are there?
I understand the concerns, but I think it's a part of the net, a good part, that we have to wrap our minds around.
Especially when you mention Usenet archives, which are (ok, get ready to laugh) historically important. I'm not kidding! There is a little signal in there, it's a cultural brain dump, and that's of historic interest.
I think the rub is, if the archive presents the data exactly as you presented it (that is, it doesn't play with your content, present it in a frame or otherwise embed it as their own content), then it is a fair archive, a ghost of your site still walking the internet. There is no taking it back once you post it.
I assume the poster thinks most of the bugs are not serious, and they are willing to just not see them all. I mean, if these are fatal bugs then there is no question, you need to find them.
So I say, be happy if you have a list of thousands of bugs... just prioritize them and possibly decide which ones will be "In the Shipping Version".
I remember a time, from ancient history, when there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse... much less "trust them, they are the government" rhetoric was heard at that time!
Did it occur to you these laws will be in place the next time a Democrat is elected?
If you don't buy Gates' ad-hocking promises of redemption there are other solutions, like creating a programming language that forces good code;
Or a better bet would to just find the Fountain of Youth so you can drink it's water, stay forever young, and then you'll have plenty of time to fix the bugs in the real languages.