The PSP Go was a frakin' horrid piece of hardware that wasn't worth the plastic it's frame is made out of.
Honestly though, it was just a bad product that took out features from the original from attempts to close and kill out the home-brew (pirate?) community.
I fully understand that some of the more vocal potheads are idiots. Fully get that.
I do happen to be for the legalization (not decriminalization, but legalization) and taxation of Hemp for smoking purposes.
Cigs are obviously Harmful and Liquor and do damage to it's drinker if not careful in many ways. I'm not saying either of theses should be abolished, but that Hemp should be in that line with them
The Legitimate Science to the effects of Hemp Smoking have come out in FAVOR of utilizing Hemp for Medical - and in the more laid-back scientist minds - Recreational.
Yes, their is a chance of addiction - but it's about 9% verses the 90% to 100% chances on other drugs that are legal - but I digress.
If you wish you can always read over some Essays by Scientists and others who have smoked pot and haven't become utter failures. http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/ This in particualar is by the late, great Carl Sagan.
it's Ok if you don't agree, but at least know why you don't agree.
Wouldn't you think then they would target creationism supporters - or at least guise it with a few randoms?
4 randoms - then BAM got Ken Ham's HDD full of squiddy goodness.
I claim no truth. I'm saying given the evidence in front of me and from what I've seen and read I find that Evolution shows the best model of how the diversity of life arrived on our little world. Could it be refuted and found false? Sure, but the alternative would have to be a better model of showing how the diversity of life arrived on our little world as clear if not more so then the current model. Currently I cannot from my basic understanding of the science around Evolution. Cannot see that happening anytime soon.
I find that in my personal observations those that refute evolution tend to take a literal view of the Bible instead of a more moderate and slightly more sane view of taking the entire book of Genesis as a story and not historical fact. I have not yet met another faith that refutes Evolution so fervently as a Christian with a literal historical view of the Bible.
Although Science itself does not make a moral claim outside to be objective as possible when doing the works of science
Everyday morality is the responsibility of the individual from the standpoint of proper science AFAIK
"Do not hurt your kin" is one of the many moral values wired into us by Evolution (if you happen to be on the Selfish Gene conjecture of morality in human animals)
"Pay and repay in kind" is oddly another one that's in us. That urge for justice and vengeance comes from that.
Morality is not a Human condition - it also happens to appear in many of our evolutionary cousins some closer than others.
Science allows in it's framework the ability to change and grow this is utmost defined as lacking "Absolute Truth Claims" meanwhile most of not all religions I have encountered has made "Absolute Perfect Truth and we're the only ones who got it"
From looking at it in this angle, if a religion changes it's views in any way - it proves that it lacks Absolute Truth for which is claims to have.
Yes, but from that point you still have to prove that your magic man exists and that your magic man has in fact done it in that way.
And if we have to take your word for it, what does that say to the other claims for creation?
Be it "Man came from the Ash Tree" as told in the Times of the Norse, or any other Mythos. Maybe I think you should give some credence to the Great Sleeping God Cthulhu.
Utilizing the War argument is a weak one - as others will state (Garwulf and an AC as of posting)
Some consider (falsely personally) that science (Evolution to be exact - Eugenics to be precise) was the underlying cause of the Nazi's Holocaust. Not that I'm attempting to Goodwin myself out of the talk, it's just that's the claims that I've heard personally from Creationists.
Religion however on the moral groundwork from my view is shaky ground at best. I mean I've never seen any real solid science (plenty of pseudoscience though) defend the killing or superiority of one type of persons over another.
Regardless - both the tools of science and religion could be used to gain more mass appeal to very nasty actions. Both are reprehensible to this fact.
You cannot "measure" faith for the fact that faith from the empirical standpoint looks a hell of a lot like speculation.
"I believe God exists" (a faith statement) and "I think there is an intelligent force which did XYZ" (a statement of speculation) look alike to me.
When people make these claims they either have to be testable OR tossed out as nonsense until public and independent verification in a scientific manner above and beyond all possible doubt can be confirmed.
I do not disagree with the need to curb suffering, I just think we're looking at it the wrong way.
Let's stop HUMAN suffering first - since that's the one we can absolutely guarantee happens
Then we can work on everything else.
If one day Human Suffering does come to an end, I will gladly flip to Vegitarian as long as in the cure of human suffering we've also found a way to make soy hypoallergenic AND taste good.
I understood it as using 1M to gather up groups (unis and such) to gather together and use the joint gathered funding to build the place and get it running.
So yeah, 1M to gather groups together to work on it MIGHT maybe. Get 2 Big Unis with some clout. Or 4 or 5 smaller Unis together to help. But still 1M in comparison to the Ivy League Schools that might actually have some powers to make it happens to mean little to nothing.
Would learn to drive stick.
OR
Sell it for a new Car.
Either way. They can steal and my car any day if they bring it back like that
BUT it's a one out of a million chance. Couldn't of happened to a nicer person.
They y'know could offer services based around the product to generate the needed revenue then improve the product by hiring developers to fix the issues.
Ubuntu is a very nice starting distro to get into the knowledge of Linux. I'm glad they make it work as well as they have (in my experience I had minor issues between 9.04/9.10)
I hope they can find a way to make proper funding and really make improvements to the other flavors (KDE variant Kubuntu being sometimes quite broken)
Funny story - true story. You buy the retail box, then upload the Key to Steam and download and install that way. So really once Steam gets some proper Linux support for their games (through testing as mentioned by others by the various means)
As a full time Linux user. I for one welcome the advance of having Steam run on Linux. Since that'll take from the fan boys of not having the gaming abilities. Linux CAN in fact be a all purpose desktop. Just because it's naturally born as a Server OS doesn't mean it can't be brought to the masses at large, just like everything else it takes time.
Which is why I work hard at my bug reports on my desktop and laptop to help get a Linux Desktop to become a reality. I even suggest based on my test bed editing and compiling of tools that are breaking. (in a VM, but still it counts if it's not a hardware direct issue and if the devs aren't complete dicks)
Personally, OpenGL is fairly flexible and it's used already in a lot of engines that span MANY systems (like the Unreal2 and as par rumored but yet released for Linux Unreal3) which both tend to use SDL for Audio and inputs from X11 (which is required for the GUI which comes with most modern Linux Distros)
All else fails ask the guys who worked on Unreal2 how they did it in their engine. Or dismantle the Quake3 engine and see how It keeps up since the engine from ID hasn't changed by ID since it's release [others have but I won't get into it]
If it's been done by others it sure as hell can be done by Valve. Hire a Small Team of Linux Devs if need be. I'm sure there's more than plenty who'd be willing to take a shot at it. (Hell give me 2 or 3 years and I can have the programming knowledge for just that exercise if Valve is willing to pay me when I have the sufficient knowledge and degree to back it up)
And if you're going to only support limited distros, I recommend you hit the big ones first y'know like Ubuntu, RedHat, SuSE and their (if not already) open variants
I would be one of the many Unix based boxes who would and have gladly pay for Steam Games and steam based games if they had support for my OS (which is Linux)
I'm the last person to stick up for them, but they're just doing what they think is right. Of course I think they should be added on to the list of terrorists. I don't care about their beliefs and I don't agree with their morals and what they do. They teach their children to hate the homosexual which for all we know may be just as natural as skin colour. Extremists in all forms are dangerous. It's where we draw those lines are important.
All peoples have the right to believe what ever they want. It's not their right to shove it down my throat and expect me to like it. From my studies Christianity (originally) taught that you have to learn to seperate yourself from the rest of the world to attain "salvation" reading St. Augustine and all that (long before the bible was cannonised). From what I've read. The teachings of Jesus is fine and is a good ethical code, but the entire bible needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt for it to be palpable to me. Theses nut cases have pretty much thrown 90% of Jesus's teachings out. Calling them real Christians is like calling Al-Queda real Muslims. It's offensive to those who actually use their faith in a positive well mannered way.
Of course, I'm a mixed bag of beliefs, I think I'm best summed as a Spiritual Humanist, but maybe that because I get what Caul Sagan was saying.
Slashdot Mirror
The PSP Go was a frakin' horrid piece of hardware that wasn't worth the plastic it's frame is made out of.
Honestly though, it was just a bad product that took out features from the original from attempts to close and kill out the home-brew (pirate?) community.
I fully understand that some of the more vocal potheads are idiots. Fully get that.
I do happen to be for the legalization (not decriminalization, but legalization) and taxation of Hemp for smoking purposes.
Cigs are obviously Harmful and Liquor and do damage to it's drinker if not careful in many ways. I'm not saying either of theses should be abolished, but that Hemp should be in that line with them
The Legitimate Science to the effects of Hemp Smoking have come out in FAVOR of utilizing Hemp for Medical - and in the more laid-back scientist minds - Recreational.
Yes, their is a chance of addiction - but it's about 9% verses the 90% to 100% chances on other drugs that are legal - but I digress.
If you wish you can always read over some Essays by Scientists and others who have smoked pot and haven't become utter failures. http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/ This in particualar is by the late, great Carl Sagan.
it's Ok if you don't agree, but at least know why you don't agree.
Wouldn't you think then they would target creationism supporters - or at least guise it with a few randoms?
4 randoms - then BAM got Ken Ham's HDD full of squiddy goodness.
I would also suspect 4chan being in on it.
Blu-Ray verses HD-DVD I rest my case.
I claim no truth. I'm saying given the evidence in front of me and from what I've seen and read I find that Evolution shows the best model of how the diversity of life arrived on our little world. Could it be refuted and found false? Sure, but the alternative would have to be a better model of showing how the diversity of life arrived on our little world as clear if not more so then the current model. Currently I cannot from my basic understanding of the science around Evolution. Cannot see that happening anytime soon.
I find that in my personal observations those that refute evolution tend to take a literal view of the Bible instead of a more moderate and slightly more sane view of taking the entire book of Genesis as a story and not historical fact. I have not yet met another faith that refutes Evolution so fervently as a Christian with a literal historical view of the Bible.
Although Science itself does not make a moral claim outside to be objective as possible when doing the works of science
Everyday morality is the responsibility of the individual from the standpoint of proper science AFAIK
"Do not hurt your kin" is one of the many moral values wired into us by Evolution (if you happen to be on the Selfish Gene conjecture of morality in human animals)
"Pay and repay in kind" is oddly another one that's in us. That urge for justice and vengeance comes from that.
Morality is not a Human condition - it also happens to appear in many of our evolutionary cousins some closer than others.
Science allows in it's framework the ability to change and grow this is utmost defined as lacking "Absolute Truth Claims" meanwhile most of not all religions I have encountered has made "Absolute Perfect Truth and we're the only ones who got it"
From looking at it in this angle, if a religion changes it's views in any way - it proves that it lacks Absolute Truth for which is claims to have.
And this social construct has a building to meet and and talk about whatever they want at any time they want. They need not the public square.
Yes, but from that point you still have to prove that your magic man exists and that your magic man has in fact done it in that way.
And if we have to take your word for it, what does that say to the other claims for creation?
Be it "Man came from the Ash Tree" as told in the Times of the Norse, or any other Mythos. Maybe I think you should give some credence to the Great Sleeping God Cthulhu.
Some Do, which is why they refute Evolution.
Utilizing the War argument is a weak one - as others will state (Garwulf and an AC as of posting)
Some consider (falsely personally) that science (Evolution to be exact - Eugenics to be precise) was the underlying cause of the Nazi's Holocaust. Not that I'm attempting to Goodwin myself out of the talk, it's just that's the claims that I've heard personally from Creationists.
Religion however on the moral groundwork from my view is shaky ground at best. I mean I've never seen any real solid science (plenty of pseudoscience though) defend the killing or superiority of one type of persons over another.
Regardless - both the tools of science and religion could be used to gain more mass appeal to very nasty actions. Both are reprehensible to this fact.
You cannot "measure" faith for the fact that faith from the empirical standpoint looks a hell of a lot like speculation.
"I believe God exists" (a faith statement) and "I think there is an intelligent force which did XYZ" (a statement of speculation) look alike to me.
When people make these claims they either have to be testable OR tossed out as nonsense until public and independent verification in a scientific manner above and beyond all possible doubt can be confirmed.
I do not disagree with the need to curb suffering, I just think we're looking at it the wrong way.
Let's stop HUMAN suffering first - since that's the one we can absolutely guarantee happens
Then we can work on everything else.
If one day Human Suffering does come to an end, I will gladly flip to Vegitarian as long as in the cure of human suffering we've also found a way to make soy hypoallergenic AND taste good.
That's impossible because Al Gore has no rhythm
I understood it as using 1M to gather up groups (unis and such) to gather together and use the joint gathered funding to build the place and get it running.
So yeah, 1M to gather groups together to work on it MIGHT maybe. Get 2 Big Unis with some clout. Or 4 or 5 smaller Unis together to help. But still 1M in comparison to the Ivy League Schools that might actually have some powers to make it happens to mean little to nothing.
Laws can change. Just Bugger the Elected Officials / Local Warlord enough.
Would learn to drive stick.
OR
Sell it for a new Car.
Either way. They can steal and my car any day if they bring it back like that
BUT it's a one out of a million chance. Couldn't of happened to a nicer person.
They y'know could offer services based around the product to generate the needed revenue then improve the product by hiring developers to fix the issues.
Ubuntu is a very nice starting distro to get into the knowledge of Linux. I'm glad they make it work as well as they have (in my experience I had minor issues between 9.04/9.10)
I hope they can find a way to make proper funding and really make improvements to the other flavors (KDE variant Kubuntu being sometimes quite broken)
Oh my... It seems I have been mistaken. Thank you for correcting me (may this statement also apply to sqtrock in addition)
Funny story - true story. You buy the retail box, then upload the Key to Steam and download and install that way. So really once Steam gets some proper Linux support for their games (through testing as mentioned by others by the various means)
As a full time Linux user. I for one welcome the advance of having Steam run on Linux. Since that'll take from the fan boys of not having the gaming abilities. Linux CAN in fact be a all purpose desktop. Just because it's naturally born as a Server OS doesn't mean it can't be brought to the masses at large, just like everything else it takes time.
Which is why I work hard at my bug reports on my desktop and laptop to help get a Linux Desktop to become a reality. I even suggest based on my test bed editing and compiling of tools that are breaking. (in a VM, but still it counts if it's not a hardware direct issue and if the devs aren't complete dicks)
Personally, OpenGL is fairly flexible and it's used already in a lot of engines that span MANY systems (like the Unreal2 and as par rumored but yet released for Linux Unreal3) which both tend to use SDL for Audio and inputs from X11 (which is required for the GUI which comes with most modern Linux Distros) All else fails ask the guys who worked on Unreal2 how they did it in their engine. Or dismantle the Quake3 engine and see how It keeps up since the engine from ID hasn't changed by ID since it's release [others have but I won't get into it] If it's been done by others it sure as hell can be done by Valve. Hire a Small Team of Linux Devs if need be. I'm sure there's more than plenty who'd be willing to take a shot at it. (Hell give me 2 or 3 years and I can have the programming knowledge for just that exercise if Valve is willing to pay me when I have the sufficient knowledge and degree to back it up) And if you're going to only support limited distros, I recommend you hit the big ones first y'know like Ubuntu, RedHat, SuSE and their (if not already) open variants
I would be one of the many Unix based boxes who would and have gladly pay for Steam Games and steam based games if they had support for my OS (which is Linux)
I'm the last person to stick up for them, but they're just doing what they think is right. Of course I think they should be added on to the list of terrorists. I don't care about their beliefs and I don't agree with their morals and what they do. They teach their children to hate the homosexual which for all we know may be just as natural as skin colour. Extremists in all forms are dangerous. It's where we draw those lines are important. All peoples have the right to believe what ever they want. It's not their right to shove it down my throat and expect me to like it. From my studies Christianity (originally) taught that you have to learn to seperate yourself from the rest of the world to attain "salvation" reading St. Augustine and all that (long before the bible was cannonised). From what I've read. The teachings of Jesus is fine and is a good ethical code, but the entire bible needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt for it to be palpable to me. Theses nut cases have pretty much thrown 90% of Jesus's teachings out. Calling them real Christians is like calling Al-Queda real Muslims. It's offensive to those who actually use their faith in a positive well mannered way. Of course, I'm a mixed bag of beliefs, I think I'm best summed as a Spiritual Humanist, but maybe that because I get what Caul Sagan was saying.
So... Y2K+10 would be more correct?