Re:End of an era (for me, anyway)
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 1
Sadness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I also couldn't help but feel a little sorry for you. Granted, maybe those four years were the best four years of your life. Perhaps though they could have been even better?
And no, I don't mean by your winning the challenge.
NASA can blame "accidents" on this ideology instead of blaming themselves. NASA can "pretend" that there was an accident, with such a scapegoat in their back pocket. NASA can utilize these "lost" spacecraft and never be accountable for reporting their findings.
Space exploration is NO LONGER about science. Why do people foolishly believe that NASA doesn't know exactly what they are doing?? NASA thanks each and every gullible sheep in this flocking nation!
The more the image of the subculture matters to a particular "member", the less things they do for non-trivial reasons. Perception affects both the senser and the sensee, and therefore becomes the most synergetic way to influence subculture. As a subculture becomes more concerned with its own status hierarchies, as members become more concerned with their own status within that subculture - image becomes more about what you want people to think than an altruistic representation of how you are perceived. Status becomes less about merit and more about popularity.
Yes, someone who doesn't give a crap about what people think about a contraption they built is more than likely doing it for the enjoyment and achievement on a purely personal level.
Yes, someone who builds a contraption because they know that other members of their subculture will view them favorably is more than likely doing it merely to improve their image.
Although certain subcultures are smaller than others, over time the same social dynamics usually evolve. At least within the U.S., being a "dominator" society, there are still subculture members who desire to be popular among that group. There are still those who will be jealous and spiteful towards members whose subculture status is perceived as higher. And there are *always* those for whom membership in that subculture would be virtually impossible.
The classic example is the geek who wants to party with the cheerleaders and jocks. Conversely, even if a jock wanted to play chess with the geeks, his subculture may not be so forgiving. Sometimes, image is maintained not by what is done but by what is NOT done. In certain subcultures, acting contrary to the norms can be highly detrimental to one's status. A big part of what drives the dynamic is conformity - which in the end is no more than human nature - a desire to be liked.
Lest we forget those whom often reject subculture, the individuals who base themselves in NON-conformity often coalesce into their own subcultures. I'm unfamiliar with the dynamics of this "type" of subculture, but my intuition tells me that by their very nature the members are more altruistic towards each other and themselves. Image exists, but it seems much more a result of what one thinks about onesself than a cause to influence what the group thinks.
What the parent poster has graciously illustrated is the hypocracy within the "Slashdot" subculture to criticize other subcultures for their ingrained hierarchies and trivialities, but revere such qualities within their own. What often ends up hurting subcultures are the very things that enable them.
Why aren't more skeptics questioning the pattern behind all these "convenient" problems? Of course, you may ask why would NASA want to *delay*, even *postpone* or *cancel*, so many missions? Of course, NASA wants you to believe that safety is first, and always has been.
(Guess they forgot to practice what they preach during Apollo 1 & 13 and SS Challenger, eh? Maybe they didn't "forget" but chose to "ignore" or "enable" instead.)
Now all of a sudden, ALL these problems are being noticed and documented with pretty pictures? Don't believe the hype. Figure out what NASA doesn't want you to. Your first clue might be why so many astronomical observatories are closed? And it's NOT because of "repairs" - that's the answer you are expected to believe.
Those just happen to be the industry terms. The accounting has terms just like the computer industry.
Please don't waste your time and make yourself look like a corporate toadie by giving excuses for why the news media sugar-coats their reports.
If you can somehow illustrate how the terminology in the computer industry is similarly bastardized, I'd welcome the chance to debunk it. Regardless what seems "pretty obvious" - the truth is in the words. If it can't be quoted, it CAN be denied.
Even though you're wrong concerning this instance, it sure must bother you when those darn slashdot editors get on their "soapbox" with a penny in each hand.
"Industry terms"... LOL. And why is that so? Could it be the economy's need to make corporate America look way better on the outside than it really is on the inside.
You'll see language harshen in the media, f-ing mark my words.:-)
...and if NASA had proof there of intellegent life, releasing that information would give NASA a HUGE increase in money.
Consider what information of that scope would do to international relations.
If you are top dog, you stand to be "equalized". If WE are all united as human beings towards one common cause - the benevolent advancement of OUR life form within this universe - then "WE" won't let "US" take advantage of "ourselves".
NASA would become a global space agency. They would have to share EVERYTHING they learned. For that matter, any "respectable" science agency would WANT to.
Never mind the implications of a citizenry which learns it has been lied to for decades. Certain people within NASA, JPL, the U.S. Government really like their jobs. Oh yeah, and... "You can't handle the TRUTH!"
Always remember, our government's scientists are very good. Don't believe it when you hear lame excuses, like the "english to metric" explanation being spouted concerning the failed Mars Climate Orbiter. There's much more to the story than a "measurement unit discrepancy".
Perhaps NASA does have a theory to explain the anomalies in the flight paths of Pioneer 10 & 11, but it's classified?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. But go ahead and believe what you want, hell - believe what the government scientists tell you. I won't.
I apologize for my disgust, but do you seriously claim that opinion?
Despite your firm belief otherwise, the evidence gathered at genuine crop circles cannot be accomplished by simply pushing over the stalk until it breaks. You obviously have ZERO understanding of genuine crop circles, and need to educate yourself to prevent further episodes of disinformation.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/faq.htm l http://amo.net/Contact/
Human beings aren't so special; organic life is but one of the many amazingly complex configurations matter can achieve. One could easily argue that Earth is much more complex and amazing. It is quite ironic then that beings who consider themselves so intelligent would dismiss the entire crop circle phenomenon as illegitimate.
What I find most humorous is the fact that even though the phenomena has many unanswered questions, and their content appears to be of an informational nature, and the technique is impossible to accurately rerecreate with current technologies... the so-called "intelligent" species on THIS planet states that an other-worldly intelligence would use more "advanced" forms of communication.
I hope you take this message seriously. You ARE wrong.
Using a grammar checker, let alone Microsoft's, is your advice? I assume that you found critiquing my grammar more stimulating than critiquing my content? Perhaps you should save such feedback for posters with average or below average grammar skills.
I won't even bother looking up an online review of commercial grammar checking products. Word is far worse than WordPerfect at properly checking grammar, and you should be able to easily verify that yourself.
OTOH, I welcome discussion concerning my points.
Allow me to disclaim my upcoming comments. My attempt is to provide a third-party opinion. I do not wish to offend anyone, blind or otherwise visually, physically, or mentally impaired.
Earth. Three dimensions. Life. Natural selection. Homo Sapiens. Intelligent. Emotion. Necessary evil.
I don't propose that the "rules" of society exclude those who are not "fit". We as human beings cannot attempt to mimic survival conditions as naturally occuring among other life forms. In the wild, will an "unfit" creature survive? Probably not without assistance. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Some say that human beings are not "wild". I beg to differ. We are as wild, if not moreso, than any other life form.
Society, depending on where you live, can certainly be considered "in the wild". Would Palestinians agree? Would aboriginal peoples living in a South American rainforest agree? Would a citizen of the United States agree? What happens when more "unfit" life forms survive than would occur "naturally"? Could this shift the pertinent ecological and social equilibriums in a direction which would require eventual correction?
Is it all a moot point anyway, seeing that there are much bigger problems looming on the horizon? War. Famine. Celestial object(s) nearing? Of course, we must not ignore smaller issues, but we should prioritize our efforts. Will blind people even want to play Quake if they are starving, homeless, or seriously ill/injured? Will anyone, let alone blind people, even want to play Quake if electricity is scarce and precious?
It is known that certain traits are passed to offspring through heredity. Is it possible that certain traits which would have been naturally "deselected" over time are continuing to propogate within the human gene pool?
As an aside, I argue that other traits based within human personality are having the same negative effects on our species. The best known list is: pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth. Take one look at capitalism AND government as practiced in the United States, and you see all seven in full force. ESPECIALLY GREED.
Let me ask you this: Will blindness someday disappear? Think forward a hundred years, then a thousand. Has anything like this already happened in the past? What about other genetic disorders? Yes, I understand that due to genetic mutations during DNA replication, disorders are inevitable.
The final point I would like to make concerns that which we call "human nature". It is in our "nature", as it is any other life form, to preserve and promote our continued existance. THIS is the root of much of society's problems.
There reaches a point in which the compassion of humans is in direct conflict with their continued existance. Humans value individual life more than the "life" of the entire species - compassionate to a fault, often times hindering the total advancement of the species so that certain individuals are not "left behind".
In closing, I want to reiterate that my desire is not to anger anyone with my comments. However, a thorough discussion of "Quake for the Blind" would be incomplete if it only focused on the trivialities of entertainment. Life is so much more than simply having fun.
Thanks for inviting clarification. I have nothing against the term, only its misuse. Thus the unkind label 'pseudo-intellectual'.
One translation of Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." More about O.R. here.
Why this happens, IMHO: Most people whom I see invoke O.R. are NOT knowledgeable on the topic at hand. Case in point - original article poster is the most knowledgeable on the topic at hand AND gave the actual explanation of how things happened. O.R. invoker was trying to explain what happened in a DIFFERENT way. I felt that the O.R. invoker CREATED unnecessary entities in his explanation of how the Dell postcard was 'really' sent to King George II.
Occam's Razor is not to be abused as a framework for the creation of a 'simpler' explanation that somehow must be correct because of its supposed simplicity.
That said, of course I myself created an unnecessary entity by explaining how most people who abuse O.R. are clueless about the topic at hand. With confidence I assume this, however, it is not necessarily so. However, after analyzing the 'simpler' explanation, I can with exacting hindsight conclude that they abused O.R.
In summary, I feel like Occam's Razor is often misused as a pseudo-scientific "God made it so". It's one of those theories that can be difficult to ignore when used properly, but rarely is it used properly.
Perhaps then, that the whole paradox of the name Palladium is intentional. The developers threw the execs the exact carrot they wanted to eat, only they don't realize it's poisoned.
Please, can't my wild fantasy be true this time?:-)
Don't you just love it when pseudo-intellectuals spout Occam's Razor whenever they want to play "Devil's Advocate"??
Besides the fact that the supposed "Razor" is LESS likely and MORE complex than the explanation which was already given.
Yes I have a pet peeve with people who call upon Occam's Razor. A majority of them are clueless about the topic at hand and are just trying to sound intelligent, and according to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for why such people use Occam's Razor is because they ARE clueless!
Everyone is forgetting. The time clocks are controlled by Man. "The" Man, in fact.
What happens if time seems like it's slowing down? If everyone is syncing to the same clock, everyone will think reality is no longer real.
Farmer's Almanacs are handy to know sunrise and sunset times, moonrise, etc. But what happens if they are "off" by a few minutes, according to the "official" atomic time?
Add a second here, add a half-second there, before you know it the official "time" is caught back up with where it "seems" to belong. I wonder what could cause time to seem like it's flowing slower.
One answer: a slowing of the Earth's rotation.
Keep your eyes on the clocks. ALL of them.
No way. I think we can all stop "kidding" ourselves about Disney's "wholesome" image. Nintendo would be as unlikely to partner with Disney as they were to partner with Microsoft. If you recall, Nintendo execs pretty much laughed at the MS offer.
Don't forget that having a "wholesome" image makes it that much *easier* to get away with things that others cannot. Disney *seems* wholesome because most of it is for kids, cartoony and/or animated. And because certain things about them, you will probably never hear or see.
http://www.geocities.com/~jmgould/disney.html h ttp://www.xone.net/celebration/ http://www.celebr ationfl.com/
No, no, no. IF he were to give an "accurate" date, that would be asking for trouble. Giving the most well-known "wrong" date is just as good as the "truth". Your point is well taken, and so is his. You are both right.
You sound really intelligent. So nothing I can say will convince you that you're actually a fool. You will simply have to wait until you realize it on your own...
Bass-ackwards thinking there...
Testing a car in software is far more difficult than you imagine it to be. Similarly, testing a software package is far more simple than you imagine it to be.
Also, the line "no system is perfect" is a known red herring. We're not concerned with making a perfect system. Japanese cars have NOWHERE near the number or severity of recalls that American cars have. THEY might not be perfect, but they still kick OUR asses at quality control.
Classic arguments - instead of defending something, why not make hollow accusations at everything else?
Games and gamers are like a binary star, each revolves around the other. Change in one influences the other, recursively. Yesterday's game maker had to make a great game to make alot of money. Now that there are so many more gamers, the stakes are higher. Marketing can turn a mediocre game into a money-maker.
Take that recipe, and repeat over and over. Eventually, the game landscape looks like it does today. Tons of 3-D intensive games, loads of RTS and their offspring, and a slew of sports games. Indeed, what happened to innovative side-scrollers, stimulating puzzlers, and more traditional games?
Kids today are obsessed with visuals. If the game doesn't look kick-ass, they don't want to play it. If the game doesn't involve fragging and dying every 30 seconds, they don't want to play it. Most of today's kids want the immediate gratification that games like Q3, UT, HL, etc. offer.
True, there are some types of thought that these gamers are exhibiting, that more traditional games might not bring out. But today's game doesn't make gamers really think. Many of today's games are simply proceed to the next goal, then repeat. Whatever happened to games that you wanted to play until you mastered them?
Those types of games are not conducive to money-making in today's gaming market. You have to buy the sequel! The upgrade! The expansion pack! You can't just pay $35 to have a game you want to play over and over. Like Tetris. If games were drugs, the addictiveness of Tetris is like cocaine, whereas that of say a highly popular FPS is like crack. That's why. Don't increase replayability, increase addictiveness!
DISCLAIMER: The analysis contained in the following links is NOT mine. Read it all the way through before passing judgement. Background knowledge of NASA celestial alignments is very helpful.
Faith is NOT based on experience. Faith by its very nature is belief without evidence. One may choose to view an "answered prayer" as their own personal evidence, but beware the slippery slope. In fact, that's a huge part of society's problem - too many people relying on FAITH and not enough relying on BELIEF.
Belief does NOT have to be based on experience, but usually is. Belief can be with OR without evidence, but the latter case I would call Faith. Belief often coexists with credibility, whereas Faith is independent of credibility. Belief, however, requires several things that Faith does not. Scrutiny, Analysis, Deduction, and REASONING to name but a few.
One can have either Belief in God, or Faith in God; perhaps both can even coexist in the same mind. It depends of one's own personal experience with spirituality. Where the problem with too much spirituality begins is precisely where too little science ends. How many times have we heard the phrase, "It was a Miracle," when something improbable happens? Methinks people with strong belief or faith in God are applying Occam's Razor a little too frequently.
Other countries don't have the problem that the United States has. Our citizens, for the most part, want everything easy. Coddle is our country's middle name. We are so worried about stepping on people's toes, WHEN WE SHOULD, that our society has devolved accordingly.
THIS is completely flawed logic. Just because something is imperfect does not mean that it isn't better than Microsoft's version.
How foolish is this logical fallacy, really? Saying something isn't perfect, and that somehow outweighs everything it does right? Shirley, you must be joking!
One more time, for the kiddies - next time you see a Microsoft apologist use such an argument against open source, quickly thrash the argument.
Here's the super-easy way to spot such arguments:
[OBJECT OF HATE] isn't perfect. Therefore, I wish that you would take said statement and extrapolate its meaning far beyond any rational limit to deduce that [OBJECT OF HATE] is not good. [POOR EXAMPLE]. [BAD EXAMPLE]. [RESTATED PREMISE DISGUISED AS PROOF].
Slashdot Mirror
I also couldn't help but feel a little sorry for you. Granted, maybe those four years were the best four years of your life. Perhaps though they could have been even better?
And no, I don't mean by your winning the challenge.
I haven't read anywhere that support was added for MS proxies. Am I mistaken?
Isn't "cheaper and faster" a great SCAPEGOAT?
NASA can blame "accidents" on this ideology instead of blaming themselves.
NASA can "pretend" that there was an accident, with such a scapegoat in their back pocket.
NASA can utilize these "lost" spacecraft and never be accountable for reporting their findings.
Space exploration is NO LONGER about science. Why do people foolishly believe that NASA doesn't know exactly what they are doing?? NASA thanks each and every gullible sheep in this flocking nation!
In particular, Tom Bearden's website begs you to visit.
Yes, someone who doesn't give a crap about what people think about a contraption they built is more than likely doing it for the enjoyment and achievement on a purely personal level.
Yes, someone who builds a contraption because they know that other members of their subculture will view them favorably is more than likely doing it merely to improve their image.
Although certain subcultures are smaller than others, over time the same social dynamics usually evolve. At least within the U.S., being a "dominator" society, there are still subculture members who desire to be popular among that group. There are still those who will be jealous and spiteful towards members whose subculture status is perceived as higher. And there are *always* those for whom membership in that subculture would be virtually impossible.
The classic example is the geek who wants to party with the cheerleaders and jocks. Conversely, even if a jock wanted to play chess with the geeks, his subculture may not be so forgiving. Sometimes, image is maintained not by what is done but by what is NOT done. In certain subcultures, acting contrary to the norms can be highly detrimental to one's status. A big part of what drives the dynamic is conformity - which in the end is no more than human nature - a desire to be liked.
Lest we forget those whom often reject subculture, the individuals who base themselves in NON-conformity often coalesce into their own subcultures. I'm unfamiliar with the dynamics of this "type" of subculture, but my intuition tells me that by their very nature the members are more altruistic towards each other and themselves. Image exists, but it seems much more a result of what one thinks about onesself than a cause to influence what the group thinks.
What the parent poster has graciously illustrated is the hypocracy within the "Slashdot" subculture to criticize other subcultures for their ingrained hierarchies and trivialities, but revere such qualities within their own. What often ends up hurting subcultures are the very things that enable them.
(Guess they forgot to practice what they preach during Apollo 1 & 13 and SS Challenger, eh? Maybe they didn't "forget" but chose to "ignore" or "enable" instead.)
Now all of a sudden, ALL these problems are being noticed and documented with pretty pictures? Don't believe the hype. Figure out what NASA doesn't want you to. Your first clue might be why so many astronomical observatories are closed? And it's NOT because of "repairs" - that's the answer you are expected to believe.
_
Now I Believe I Really Understand.
Please don't waste your time and make yourself look like a corporate toadie by giving excuses for why the news media sugar-coats their reports.
If you can somehow illustrate how the terminology in the computer industry is similarly bastardized, I'd welcome the chance to debunk it. Regardless what seems "pretty obvious" - the truth is in the words. If it can't be quoted, it CAN be denied.
Even though you're wrong concerning this instance, it sure must bother you when those darn slashdot editors get on their "soapbox" with a penny in each hand.
"Industry terms"... LOL. And why is that so? Could it be the economy's need to make corporate America look way better on the outside than it really is on the inside.
You'll see language harshen in the media, f-ing mark my words. :-)
Consider what information of that scope would do to international relations.
If you are top dog, you stand to be "equalized". If WE are all united as human beings towards one common cause - the benevolent advancement of OUR life form within this universe - then "WE" won't let "US" take advantage of "ourselves".
NASA would become a global space agency. They would have to share EVERYTHING they learned. For that matter, any "respectable" science agency would WANT to.
Never mind the implications of a citizenry which learns it has been lied to for decades. Certain people within NASA, JPL, the U.S. Government really like their jobs. Oh yeah, and... "You can't handle the TRUTH!"
Perhaps NASA does have a theory to explain the anomalies in the flight paths of Pioneer 10 & 11, but it's classified?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. But go ahead and believe what you want, hell - believe what the government scientists tell you. I won't.
Despite your firm belief otherwise, the evidence gathered at genuine crop circles cannot be accomplished by simply pushing over the stalk until it breaks. You obviously have ZERO understanding of genuine crop circles, and need to educate yourself to prevent further episodes of disinformation.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/faq.htm l
http://amo.net/Contact/
Human beings aren't so special; organic life is but one of the many amazingly complex configurations matter can achieve. One could easily argue that Earth is much more complex and amazing. It is quite ironic then that beings who consider themselves so intelligent would dismiss the entire crop circle phenomenon as illegitimate.
What I find most humorous is the fact that even though the phenomena has many unanswered questions, and their content appears to be of an informational nature, and the technique is impossible to accurately rerecreate with current technologies... the so-called "intelligent" species on THIS planet states that an other-worldly intelligence would use more "advanced" forms of communication.
I hope you take this message seriously. You ARE wrong.
Using a grammar checker, let alone Microsoft's, is your advice? I assume that you found critiquing my grammar more stimulating than critiquing my content? Perhaps you should save such feedback for posters with average or below average grammar skills. I won't even bother looking up an online review of commercial grammar checking products. Word is far worse than WordPerfect at properly checking grammar, and you should be able to easily verify that yourself. OTOH, I welcome discussion concerning my points.
Perhaps they are looking for one of these...
Earth. Three dimensions.
Life. Natural selection.
Homo Sapiens. Intelligent.
Emotion. Necessary evil.
I don't propose that the "rules" of society exclude those who are not "fit". We as human beings cannot attempt to mimic survival conditions as naturally occuring among other life forms. In the wild, will an "unfit" creature survive? Probably not without assistance. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Some say that human beings are not "wild". I beg to differ. We are as wild, if not moreso, than any other life form.
Society, depending on where you live, can certainly be considered "in the wild". Would Palestinians agree? Would aboriginal peoples living in a South American rainforest agree? Would a citizen of the United States agree? What happens when more "unfit" life forms survive than would occur "naturally"? Could this shift the pertinent ecological and social equilibriums in a direction which would require eventual correction?
Is it all a moot point anyway, seeing that there are much bigger problems looming on the horizon? War. Famine. Celestial object(s) nearing? Of course, we must not ignore smaller issues, but we should prioritize our efforts. Will blind people even want to play Quake if they are starving, homeless, or seriously ill/injured? Will anyone, let alone blind people, even want to play Quake if electricity is scarce and precious?
It is known that certain traits are passed to offspring through heredity. Is it possible that certain traits which would have been naturally "deselected" over time are continuing to propogate within the human gene pool?
As an aside, I argue that other traits based within human personality are having the same negative effects on our species. The best known list is: pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth. Take one look at capitalism AND government as practiced in the United States, and you see all seven in full force. ESPECIALLY GREED.
Let me ask you this: Will blindness someday disappear? Think forward a hundred years, then a thousand. Has anything like this already happened in the past? What about other genetic disorders? Yes, I understand that due to genetic mutations during DNA replication, disorders are inevitable.
The final point I would like to make concerns that which we call "human nature". It is in our "nature", as it is any other life form, to preserve and promote our continued existance. THIS is the root of much of society's problems.
There reaches a point in which the compassion of humans is in direct conflict with their continued existance. Humans value individual life more than the "life" of the entire species - compassionate to a fault, often times hindering the total advancement of the species so that certain individuals are not "left behind".
In closing, I want to reiterate that my desire is not to anger anyone with my comments. However, a thorough discussion of "Quake for the Blind" would be incomplete if it only focused on the trivialities of entertainment. Life is so much more than simply having fun.
One translation of Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." More about O.R. here.
Why this happens, IMHO: Most people whom I see invoke O.R. are NOT knowledgeable on the topic at hand. Case in point - original article poster is the most knowledgeable on the topic at hand AND gave the actual explanation of how things happened. O.R. invoker was trying to explain what happened in a DIFFERENT way. I felt that the O.R. invoker CREATED unnecessary entities in his explanation of how the Dell postcard was 'really' sent to King George II.
Occam's Razor is not to be abused as a framework for the creation of a 'simpler' explanation that somehow must be correct because of its supposed simplicity.
That said, of course I myself created an unnecessary entity by explaining how most people who abuse O.R. are clueless about the topic at hand. With confidence I assume this, however, it is not necessarily so. However, after analyzing the 'simpler' explanation, I can with exacting hindsight conclude that they abused O.R.
In summary, I feel like Occam's Razor is often misused as a pseudo-scientific "God made it so". It's one of those theories that can be difficult to ignore when used properly, but rarely is it used properly.
Please, can't my wild fantasy be true this time? :-)
Let's all say it together!
Don't you just love it when pseudo-intellectuals spout Occam's Razor whenever they want to play "Devil's Advocate"??
Besides the fact that the supposed "Razor" is LESS likely and MORE complex than the explanation which was already given.
Yes I have a pet peeve with people who call upon Occam's Razor. A majority of them are clueless about the topic at hand and are just trying to sound intelligent, and according to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation for why such people use Occam's Razor is because they ARE clueless!
Polish a turd, it's still stinky and brown.
Everyone is forgetting. The time clocks are controlled by Man. "The" Man, in fact. What happens if time seems like it's slowing down? If everyone is syncing to the same clock, everyone will think reality is no longer real. Farmer's Almanacs are handy to know sunrise and sunset times, moonrise, etc. But what happens if they are "off" by a few minutes, according to the "official" atomic time? Add a second here, add a half-second there, before you know it the official "time" is caught back up with where it "seems" to belong. I wonder what could cause time to seem like it's flowing slower. One answer: a slowing of the Earth's rotation. Keep your eyes on the clocks. ALL of them.
No way. I think we can all stop "kidding" ourselves about Disney's "wholesome" image. Nintendo would be as unlikely to partner with Disney as they were to partner with Microsoft. If you recall, Nintendo execs pretty much laughed at the MS offer.
h ttp://www.xone.net/celebration/r ationfl.com/
Don't forget that having a "wholesome" image makes it that much *easier* to get away with things that others cannot. Disney *seems* wholesome because most of it is for kids, cartoony and/or animated. And because certain things about them, you will probably never hear or see.
http://www.geocities.com/~jmgould/disney.html
http://www.celeb
No, no, no. IF he were to give an "accurate" date, that would be asking for trouble. Giving the most well-known "wrong" date is just as good as the "truth". Your point is well taken, and so is his. You are both right.
In 2003.
Also, the line "no system is perfect" is a known red herring. We're not concerned with making a perfect system. Japanese cars have NOWHERE near the number or severity of recalls that American cars have. THEY might not be perfect, but they still kick OUR asses at quality control.
Classic arguments - instead of defending something, why not make hollow accusations at everything else?
Take that recipe, and repeat over and over. Eventually, the game landscape looks like it does today. Tons of 3-D intensive games, loads of RTS and their offspring, and a slew of sports games. Indeed, what happened to innovative side-scrollers, stimulating puzzlers, and more traditional games?
Kids today are obsessed with visuals. If the game doesn't look kick-ass, they don't want to play it. If the game doesn't involve fragging and dying every 30 seconds, they don't want to play it. Most of today's kids want the immediate gratification that games like Q3, UT, HL, etc. offer.
True, there are some types of thought that these gamers are exhibiting, that more traditional games might not bring out. But today's game doesn't make gamers really think. Many of today's games are simply proceed to the next goal, then repeat. Whatever happened to games that you wanted to play until you mastered them?
Those types of games are not conducive to money-making in today's gaming market. You have to buy the sequel! The upgrade! The expansion pack! You can't just pay $35 to have a game you want to play over and over. Like Tetris. If games were drugs, the addictiveness of Tetris is like cocaine, whereas that of say a highly popular FPS is like crack. That's why. Don't increase replayability, increase addictiveness!
Read it all the way through before passing judgement.
Background knowledge of NASA celestial alignments is very helpful.
Star Wars "19.5" The Phantom Symbolism
(Original Page | Google Cache)
Faith is NOT based on experience. Faith by its very nature is belief without evidence. One may choose to view an "answered prayer" as their own personal evidence, but beware the slippery slope. In fact, that's a huge part of society's problem - too many people relying on FAITH and not enough relying on BELIEF.
Belief does NOT have to be based on experience, but usually is. Belief can be with OR without evidence, but the latter case I would call Faith. Belief often coexists with credibility, whereas Faith is independent of credibility. Belief, however, requires several things that Faith does not. Scrutiny, Analysis, Deduction, and REASONING to name but a few.
One can have either Belief in God, or Faith in God; perhaps both can even coexist in the same mind. It depends of one's own personal experience with spirituality. Where the problem with too much spirituality begins is precisely where too little science ends. How many times have we heard the phrase, "It was a Miracle," when something improbable happens? Methinks people with strong belief or faith in God are applying Occam's Razor a little too frequently.
Other countries don't have the problem that the United States has. Our citizens, for the most part, want everything easy. Coddle is our country's middle name. We are so worried about stepping on people's toes, WHEN WE SHOULD, that our society has devolved accordingly.
America lacks Discipline.
THIS is completely flawed logic. Just because something is imperfect does not mean that it isn't better than Microsoft's version.
How foolish is this logical fallacy, really? Saying something isn't perfect, and that somehow outweighs everything it does right? Shirley, you must be joking!
One more time, for the kiddies - next time you see a Microsoft apologist use such an argument against open source, quickly thrash the argument.
Here's the super-easy way to spot such arguments:
[OBJECT OF HATE] isn't perfect. Therefore, I wish that you would take said statement and extrapolate its meaning far beyond any rational limit to deduce that [OBJECT OF HATE] is not good. [POOR EXAMPLE]. [BAD EXAMPLE]. [RESTATED PREMISE DISGUISED AS PROOF].