Zelda was amazing on the NES. Mario64 was amazing on the N64
On the PC: King's Quest Wing Commander Lemmings Doom I/II (Wolf3D was cool, but Doom was much better, Doom II was great 1v1 DM) GLQuake (going from the software rendering to the hardware acceleration was cool) Half Life (the story was great, and the game was great)
You sound like the Linux vs Windows people. Java gives you choice. That could be restated as Java makes it confusing. No matter what you say about it, it's easier to get up and going with.Net than with Java. By the time you reach the point where you contend that Java gets better, you're already using.Net, so why switch?
The brilliance of this is that you could charge a patent license before they filed suit, so you aren't dependent on them winning or obtaining a settlement!
I think that it cost John Kerry a lot of votes when it was discovered that he and his idle billionaire wife were paying taxes at a rate of 15%, thanks to clever lawyering, while calling for higher taxes on hard-working dentists and doctors and small businessmen who were already paying 30% or more marginal tax rates. It certainly confirmed my own poor opinion of him when I found that I paid more taxes than he did.
Got a link? I'd be curious to see it. It's not that I doubt you, it's just that would be a fun fact to toss into the next Kerry/Bush argument I see. Hopefully I've type enough by now for Slashdot to let me post.
Bill Gates gives to scientists working on AIDS research (among others).... That money would be better off going to God's organization.
The implication from your post (including texts I left out about how Christians won't get AIDS) is that we should let our fellow man die for their sins. It is not our place to judge; it is our place to love. Healing them would be an act of love. Telling them they shouldn't have been promiscuous and they wouldn't have gotten AIDS is an act of judgement. Which more resembles an act of Christ?
Fundamentalists read the Bible, look at the actual black-and-white text and do what it says: hate gays, hate other religions, hate sex, hate the darkies and try and save everyone else's soul. Progressives simply pretend that those parts of the Bible don't exist and pay attention only to Jesus (who never explicitly said that the Old Testament was wrong, in error or should be ignored).
You are so ridiculously incorrect that it's not even amusing. I know, this is Slashdot, and we've become used to this sort of thing. The Bible doesn't say a single thing about "hate gays, hate other religions, hate sex, hate the darkies". Not once. Sorry, bub. Jesus repeatedly demonstrated that it was more important to love than it was to enforce the law. An example of this is when the pharisees looked to condemn him for healing a man on the sabbath (in the OT, it is unlawful to perform any work on the sabbath). At no point was the message to "hate" anyone for anything. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, we are told to love each other (friends and enemies both).
I'm sorry, but reasonable Christians have to simply accept that there are some real atrocities in their religion's history and that there was valid grounding in their holy scriptures for them.Must the muslims accept what happen to the World Trade Center? I don't see either as needing acceptance. If I bomb fundamentalist Christians in the name of Durandal64, is it your problem? You clearly seem to not like them and I took it to mean that you thought the world would be a better place without them. Please accept my actions as they were done in your name.
Those people had unquestioning faith. Saying that they weren't Christians belies a staggering ignorance of history.
Was Ptolemy not a scientist? Did he not get the whole solar system completely wrong? Does that invalidate all of science? No, but you learn from it that sometimes scientists are wrong. The same goes for Christians. Big whoop.
But what's bad is pretending that their take on Christianity is the only valid one. They start from the assumption that Christianity must be tolerant and loving and interpret the Bible from that framework, completely disregarding history and the text on the page.
You really don't get the Bible or the religion. Sure, you can pull out one liners and short stories, but when you take them out of the context of the entire thing, they're useless. It's not surprising that you don't get it. I don't, either. Jesus three times told his disciples (who followed him around constantly and heard everything he said) that they didn't get it.
I'll give credence to this "true Christianity" claim when major churches start putting their money where their mouths are and declare the racist, sexist, morally abhorrent parts of the Bible invalid.
Won't ever happen. It's part of the story of God's relationship with man. It's a part that you don't seem to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong or morally abhorrent. It's neither of those things.
Demand that christian leaders oppose this. Demand of your clergy that they not stay silent and let the only public voice of christianity be anti-science. It's not OUR business to try to save your christianity from them, it's yours. If you can't be bothered, if christian leaders are willing to let the anti-science voice be the ONLY voice of christianity, then don't complain to those who see this bullshit and point it out.
As another response pointed out, the Vatican has already spoken on the matter. Other leaders have spoken as well. If both sides continue to ignore what the reasonable people say and just shout over top of them, then we'll leave you to your fight. It is appropriate to make the position known and available, but it's not appropriate to become boistrous and beligerent. If you're hoping for some over TV time and politcal grandstanding, then you're going to be disappointed. I'm sorry that the press wasn't quick to publicize the statements that Evolution vs Creationism isn't a controversy. The press wants controversy.
The problem is that stereotypes stick. Sure, intelligent people can recognize them, but many people can't. If Christianity continually gets associated with opposing science, then people will start to believe. Perhaps not you, but many people will. I realize that the fundamentalist Christians that vocally oppose many sciences contribute, but that's not an excuse for others to perpetuate the stereotype. If that stereotype gets fully established, it's only going to cause problems.
What ever happened to parents and not the government being responsible for their kids?
I'm not saying the government should be doing it, but talk to a few teachers - they'll tell you that parents certainly expect the schools and the government to raise their kids for them. Too many parents aren't bothering to raise their kids.
Homophobia, you understand. Don't want to look gay or anything. Same reason guys don't admit to it, same reason guys don't get tested, same reason guys give it to their girlfriends when they get out. Shame.
Are you saying that someone that does this is something other than an idiot? Allowing social pressures to drag them down into the spread of a deadly disease? That's what I would call an idiot.
As for having unprotected sex being idiotic, if that were true we're all idiots. Well, probably not you. I'll let you in on a little secret, though -- condomless feels better. In the moment, it's pretty easy to convince yourself that you can beat the odds.
Again, if you think the risk of contracting a deadly disease is worth the nicer feel, then good for you. Please get tested regularly so that you don't go around spreading it to other women you convince that you can 'beat the odds'.
Is racial insensitivity so DEAD in your country that you can't see how putting four influential black icons onto the same page as a B-movie about monkeys is offensive?
How are we going to get past racial issues if we make a big stink out of every minor thing that happens. If people are actually offended by this recommendation and feel that this is calling black people apes, then they are a serious part of the problem.
Couldn't this be used as a way to escape the gift tax? If I give you $10 million, then you have to pay taxes on it. If I loan you $10 million, then as a gift to you, cancel your debt to me, then you've paid no taxes on the $10 million.
Not only that, when you have a typo in a URL, you are often taken to MSN Search if you are an IE user. I never go there by my own free will, but my browser will end up there on its own.
If someone told you that you could have $1000000 for nothing except exploiting a system that's getting fucked over anyway, would you really be that bad for taking it?
It is also just unsightly to see them all over roads and sidewalks.
What, do you expect smokers to put the butts in their ashtrays or something? They smell terrible and stink up the car. It's much better to throw them out the window where you don't have to worry about those nasty, filthy things anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Crystal isn't very expensive, it's easy to use, and it is very easy to find people that know how to use it.
let this be a lesson for you kids, get plenty of sleep or you'll make yourself look like a fool in public :)
This is Slashdot, your post fit right in.
Zelda was amazing on the NES.
Mario64 was amazing on the N64
On the PC:
King's Quest
Wing Commander
Lemmings
Doom I/II (Wolf3D was cool, but Doom was much better, Doom II was great 1v1 DM)
GLQuake (going from the software rendering to the hardware acceleration was cool)
Half Life (the story was great, and the game was great)
You sound like the Linux vs Windows people. Java gives you choice. That could be restated as Java makes it confusing. No matter what you say about it, it's easier to get up and going with .Net than with Java. By the time you reach the point where you contend that Java gets better, you're already using .Net, so why switch?
The brilliance of this is that you could charge a patent license before they filed suit, so you aren't dependent on them winning or obtaining a settlement!
I think that it cost John Kerry a lot of votes when it was discovered that he and his idle billionaire wife were paying taxes at a rate of 15%, thanks to clever lawyering, while calling for higher taxes on hard-working dentists and doctors and small businessmen who were already paying 30% or more marginal tax rates. It certainly confirmed my own poor opinion of him when I found that I paid more taxes than he did.
Got a link? I'd be curious to see it. It's not that I doubt you, it's just that would be a fun fact to toss into the next Kerry/Bush argument I see. Hopefully I've type enough by now for Slashdot to let me post.
Bill Gates gives to scientists working on AIDS research (among others). ... That money would be better off going to God's organization.
The implication from your post (including texts I left out about how Christians won't get AIDS) is that we should let our fellow man die for their sins. It is not our place to judge; it is our place to love. Healing them would be an act of love. Telling them they shouldn't have been promiscuous and they wouldn't have gotten AIDS is an act of judgement. Which more resembles an act of Christ?
Fundamentalists read the Bible, look at the actual black-and-white text and do what it says: hate gays, hate other religions, hate sex, hate the darkies and try and save everyone else's soul. Progressives simply pretend that those parts of the Bible don't exist and pay attention only to Jesus (who never explicitly said that the Old Testament was wrong, in error or should be ignored).
You are so ridiculously incorrect that it's not even amusing. I know, this is Slashdot, and we've become used to this sort of thing. The Bible doesn't say a single thing about "hate gays, hate other religions, hate sex, hate the darkies". Not once. Sorry, bub. Jesus repeatedly demonstrated that it was more important to love than it was to enforce the law. An example of this is when the pharisees looked to condemn him for healing a man on the sabbath (in the OT, it is unlawful to perform any work on the sabbath). At no point was the message to "hate" anyone for anything. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, we are told to love each other (friends and enemies both).
I'm sorry, but reasonable Christians have to simply accept that there are some real atrocities in their religion's history and that there was valid grounding in their holy scriptures for them.Must the muslims accept what happen to the World Trade Center? I don't see either as needing acceptance. If I bomb fundamentalist Christians in the name of Durandal64, is it your problem? You clearly seem to not like them and I took it to mean that you thought the world would be a better place without them. Please accept my actions as they were done in your name.
Those people had unquestioning faith. Saying that they weren't Christians belies a staggering ignorance of history.
Was Ptolemy not a scientist? Did he not get the whole solar system completely wrong? Does that invalidate all of science? No, but you learn from it that sometimes scientists are wrong. The same goes for Christians. Big whoop.
But what's bad is pretending that their take on Christianity is the only valid one. They start from the assumption that Christianity must be tolerant and loving and interpret the Bible from that framework, completely disregarding history and the text on the page.
You really don't get the Bible or the religion. Sure, you can pull out one liners and short stories, but when you take them out of the context of the entire thing, they're useless. It's not surprising that you don't get it. I don't, either. Jesus three times told his disciples (who followed him around constantly and heard everything he said) that they didn't get it.
I'll give credence to this "true Christianity" claim when major churches start putting their money where their mouths are and declare the racist, sexist, morally abhorrent parts of the Bible invalid.
Won't ever happen. It's part of the story of God's relationship with man. It's a part that you don't seem to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong or morally abhorrent. It's neither of those things.
I've never tried it myself, but my dog licked one of those toads exactly one time. She won't even go near them now.
Steve Jobs will begin designing rides at Disneyland. You know there will be an acid trip ride, something Alice and Wonderland style. I can't wait.
You mean like Mr Toad's Wild Ride?
Demand that christian leaders oppose this. Demand of your clergy that they not stay silent and let the only public voice of christianity be anti-science. It's not OUR business to try to save your christianity from them, it's yours. If you can't be bothered, if christian leaders are willing to let the anti-science voice be the ONLY voice of christianity, then don't complain to those who see this bullshit and point it out.
As another response pointed out, the Vatican has already spoken on the matter. Other leaders have spoken as well. If both sides continue to ignore what the reasonable people say and just shout over top of them, then we'll leave you to your fight. It is appropriate to make the position known and available, but it's not appropriate to become boistrous and beligerent. If you're hoping for some over TV time and politcal grandstanding, then you're going to be disappointed. I'm sorry that the press wasn't quick to publicize the statements that Evolution vs Creationism isn't a controversy. The press wants controversy.
The problem is that stereotypes stick. Sure, intelligent people can recognize them, but many people can't. If Christianity continually gets associated with opposing science, then people will start to believe. Perhaps not you, but many people will. I realize that the fundamentalist Christians that vocally oppose many sciences contribute, but that's not an excuse for others to perpetuate the stereotype. If that stereotype gets fully established, it's only going to cause problems.
What ever happened to parents and not the government being responsible for their kids?
I'm not saying the government should be doing it, but talk to a few teachers - they'll tell you that parents certainly expect the schools and the government to raise their kids for them. Too many parents aren't bothering to raise their kids.
Homophobia, you understand. Don't want to look gay or anything. Same reason guys don't admit to it, same reason guys don't get tested, same reason guys give it to their girlfriends when they get out. Shame.
Are you saying that someone that does this is something other than an idiot? Allowing social pressures to drag them down into the spread of a deadly disease? That's what I would call an idiot.
As for having unprotected sex being idiotic, if that were true we're all idiots. Well, probably not you. I'll let you in on a little secret, though -- condomless feels better. In the moment, it's pretty easy to convince yourself that you can beat the odds.
Again, if you think the risk of contracting a deadly disease is worth the nicer feel, then good for you. Please get tested regularly so that you don't go around spreading it to other women you convince that you can 'beat the odds'.
Is racial insensitivity so DEAD in your country that you can't see how putting four influential black icons onto the same page as a B-movie about monkeys is offensive?
How are we going to get past racial issues if we make a big stink out of every minor thing that happens. If people are actually offended by this recommendation and feel that this is calling black people apes, then they are a serious part of the problem.
Couldn't this be used as a way to escape the gift tax? If I give you $10 million, then you have to pay taxes on it. If I loan you $10 million, then as a gift to you, cancel your debt to me, then you've paid no taxes on the $10 million.
Not only that, when you have a typo in a URL, you are often taken to MSN Search if you are an IE user. I never go there by my own free will, but my browser will end up there on its own.
Buying gifts is hard and rarely worth the hassle.
Please discontinue your celebration of Christmas and/or Hannukah. You have no idea what they are about.
If someone told you that you could have $1000000 for nothing except exploiting a system that's getting fucked over anyway, would you really be that bad for taking it?
Yes.
Yes, he tried to cover it up, but did he try to fudge any of the research? Does this make his science bad in any way?
It makes him dishonest, and therefore people will doubt anything he says. I'm okay with deliberate dishonesty being grounds for dismissal/resignation.
Why buy an Intel Mac?
Becuase I could care less about the CPU itself. I use the computer for its software, but because of which CPU architecture it uses.
Yeah, but a lot of those rainforest saving hippie broads don't shave or shower.
It is also just unsightly to see them all over roads and sidewalks.
What, do you expect smokers to put the butts in their ashtrays or something? They smell terrible and stink up the car. It's much better to throw them out the window where you don't have to worry about those nasty, filthy things anymore.
It's refreshing to know that cutting money to find deadbeat dads is top on the Republican's fiscal responsibility list.
So, you had sex with a loser, got knocked up, and now that he ran out on you (surprise!), it's the government's job to find him for you?
All articles like this overgeneralize.