there's no idyllic haven for cheaters like the headline and summary imply. they put all the cheaters together and then see if they cheat again, and when they do they get the ban hammer. the only way to stay in the cheaters pool, and the game itself, is to stop cheating. even ars technica missed this important bit of info.
thanks for killing the joke. we were hoping some overqualified buzzkill would come drop a piano on the reverie. maybe you were just missing the premise of the joke (the part about standards being relaxed) which allowed those of us with creativity and imagination to suspend disbelief for the lulz.
so obviously we can't let them solve the problems for some devices simply because it's not solved for all devices. no, old deaf person, you can't hook up your hearing aid to the iphone your kids got you for christmas, because it doesn't work with the few remaining land lines that you're forced to use instead of a cell. we're just looking out for your interests.
step 1: find someone who owns a gun to frame for the murder you want to commit
step 2: acquire several spent casings from the scapegoat's gun. this can be done before you give the gun to him/her as an anonymous gift, or by taking scapegoat to a firing range as a social outing
step 3: commit murder without being seen. swap casings from your gun with scapegoat's casings.
buy an android phone, cheap, off prepaid providers like cricket. don't bother hooking up a phone number to it. build your speech app in android, upload directly to phone. there, now the kid is talking and not texting while driving. or should i patent this process?
i heard you like to overthink shit
so i overthought the shit you're overthinking
so you can overthink shit
while i overthink you overthinking the shit you're overthinking
i must be stupid (as in smart, not smart as in stupid) because i got those little word problems correct. the lily pad example was really easy.
i agree with that. the point i was trying to make necessitates it. that humans act like shit, feel bad about it, try to amend, and repeat is the recursive pattern of evolution in nature. it should be a strengthening process in the long term, just as building muscle requires tearing it first, feeding it protein, giving it rest, and repeating.
We are the only species we know for sure can (and has) changed our behavior specifically because of conscious consideration for the large-scale and long-term effects of what we were doing before.
assuming this is true, so what? conscious choice, unconscious choice, it's all still a product of nature. nature created our conscious choice -- in fact we recently discovered a way in which nature itself makes physical choices with our genes (it's speculated that it's responsible for our intelligence) http://news.discovery.com/human/ancient-human-brain-neanderthal-120506.html. it's a tool we use, the same way primates use tools to groom themselves. there is really no such thing as artificial. we use the word to distinguish what humans do apart from what the rest of nature does (like "artificial hearts"), but the line that separates the two is also drawn by humans (in the end, a heart is merely a centralized device that pumps blood, organic or not), so after removing the bias there is nothing left but the natural. it is, really, "just what happens."
a lizard regrows its tail, you say it's natural. man replaces his limbs with prosthetics or walking aids like crutches and canes and you say it's artificial. bullshit. it's just as natural for an asteroid to hit our moon as it is for us to leave a vehicle on it. it's all natural. this is what humans do, by nature. any choice we make, or action we take, conscious or not, is by our nature.
i'll tell you what's unnatural: that which is impossible. it's impossible for us, in our current physiology, to just get up off the ground and fly without help of inventions. we can't do it, and we can't choose to do it. to do it would be unnatural. this is why people pay money to see david blaine levitate only to find out he's standing on the toes of one foot with his back to you. it's not unnatural to levitate using an Osprey jet, or even one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-3Ql7G7qRc. all laws of physics are still being observed.
if another earth-like planet is evolving humans on it (i.e. all things being equal), then having seen it done before, it would be quite reasonable to expect them to develop cities, and to pollute and overpopulate them before (if ever) finding a permanent way to cohabitate without doing damage. as it is, damaging our environment is just what we do.
Hey, I'm all for the observation that humans are a part of the natural world -- except for when it's used to dismiss human agency.
boo hoo, but this is just plain wrong. i realize this may be an ego-bruising viewpoint compared to what they teach in church, but you sound an awful lot like a girl i knew who tried to argue with me (almost to the point of screaming) that humans weren't animals but some higher form of life outside the taxonomy of living things. she was wrong, and so are you. we're homo sapiens sapiens, we do what we do because it's our nature to do so, and it's not subject to our biased opinions of ourselves. simply imagine a non-human viewpoint and it becomes obvious. if nature didn't evolve human agency (or any other animal's agency), then what do you think causes it? whatever it is, i'm sure it's good for a laugh.
nothing else exists except nature, so there cannot be anything that exists or occurs that isn't natural. polluted, overpopulated cities are easily comparable to bacteria colonies. it's just what happens when you ask DNA to grow humans.
scooters are not a valid solution to this argument. are you going to take both your kids to the doctor on the back of your scooter? maybe you think everyone has time to make trips in order to transport their family. if they have a car already and this is for them to commute, now you're talking double registration and insurance costs, plus extra gas.
i think i should point out that public transportation is great at getting people fired. and not everyone has strong legs, or a bicycle, or can feasibly walk/run/cycle the distance to work. at one point i used to ride my skateboard half an hour to the nearest available bus stop, take the bus to a trolley, take the trolley to another bus, and then skate uphill for 20 minutes to get to work. each way took 2 hours; that was 4 hours of my day gone to commuting. thank god i was a beast of a man in my early twenties. and thank god i didn't have a family to worry about at the time. i didn't have the time or the means to pick up kids from school/babysitter/sports let alone take them to the doctor.
i find your expectation of salary to be amusing too. who makes a minimum wage salary? even if you have the lowest tier health insurance, who says it's enough to pay for your needs?
As you are still alive, it shows you didn't actually try any of it's instruction on yourself.
FTFY
and yes, it is a good thing. that recipe for baking banana peel scrapings for 48 hrs to make a hallucinogen would have had me eating fast food for a couple days.
hmmm. i guess. when i follow a recipe i have a pretty good understanding why i'm using what i'm using. if i'm baking bread i know why i use yeast and when i bake cookies i know why i use eggs. when i make a reduction, i know why i'm evaporating water. maybe it's only chefs that do chemistry with food? i was unaware that chemistry can not be practical.
in trying to come up with an eloquent way to explain the obvious generalization about slashdot all i can come up with is "whoosh." it's nice and pithy, though.
That nugget of information makes it sound like the homeschoolers are not competent teachers, which asks the question "Why are they homeschooling"?
someday there will be a critical mass of people who stop and think about what is being said before jumping to really weak conclusions. here's my assumption: in your tiny universe it's not possible for someone to have learning disabilities regardless of whether or not they attend school.
Slashdot Mirror
there's no idyllic haven for cheaters like the headline and summary imply. they put all the cheaters together and then see if they cheat again, and when they do they get the ban hammer. the only way to stay in the cheaters pool, and the game itself, is to stop cheating. even ars technica missed this important bit of info.
thanks for killing the joke. we were hoping some overqualified buzzkill would come drop a piano on the reverie. maybe you were just missing the premise of the joke (the part about standards being relaxed) which allowed those of us with creativity and imagination to suspend disbelief for the lulz.
so obviously we can't let them solve the problems for some devices simply because it's not solved for all devices. no, old deaf person, you can't hook up your hearing aid to the iphone your kids got you for christmas, because it doesn't work with the few remaining land lines that you're forced to use instead of a cell. we're just looking out for your interests.
step 1: find someone who owns a gun to frame for the murder you want to commit
step 2: acquire several spent casings from the scapegoat's gun. this can be done before you give the gun to him/her as an anonymous gift, or by taking scapegoat to a firing range as a social outing
step 3: commit murder without being seen. swap casings from your gun with scapegoat's casings.
step 4: ???
step 5: PROFIT!
"my hearing aid made my pacemaker crash" would be pretty shitty.
yep. tell your company to switch to HSAs. best thing evar
Coercion, by Douglas Rushkoff
http://www.rushkoff.com/coercion/
Trust Us, We're Experts, by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html
seems legit >>
try reading with html turned on. i ended the meme and made my own comment after.
i know, so what's up with the offtopics? where's my troll points, goddammit!
buy an android phone, cheap, off prepaid providers like cricket. don't bother hooking up a phone number to it. build your speech app in android, upload directly to phone. there, now the kid is talking and not texting while driving. or should i patent this process?
yo dawg
i heard you like to overthink shit
so i overthought the shit you're overthinking
so you can overthink shit
while i overthink you overthinking the shit you're overthinking
i must be stupid (as in smart, not smart as in stupid) because i got those little word problems correct. the lily pad example was really easy.
he's known for proving that language is innate in humans. it's a pretty big deal, unlike yourself.
i agree with that. the point i was trying to make necessitates it. that humans act like shit, feel bad about it, try to amend, and repeat is the recursive pattern of evolution in nature. it should be a strengthening process in the long term, just as building muscle requires tearing it first, feeding it protein, giving it rest, and repeating.
We are the only species we know for sure can (and has) changed our behavior specifically because of conscious consideration for the large-scale and long-term effects of what we were doing before.
assuming this is true, so what? conscious choice, unconscious choice, it's all still a product of nature. nature created our conscious choice -- in fact we recently discovered a way in which nature itself makes physical choices with our genes (it's speculated that it's responsible for our intelligence) http://news.discovery.com/human/ancient-human-brain-neanderthal-120506.html. it's a tool we use, the same way primates use tools to groom themselves. there is really no such thing as artificial. we use the word to distinguish what humans do apart from what the rest of nature does (like "artificial hearts"), but the line that separates the two is also drawn by humans (in the end, a heart is merely a centralized device that pumps blood, organic or not), so after removing the bias there is nothing left but the natural. it is, really, "just what happens."
a lizard regrows its tail, you say it's natural. man replaces his limbs with prosthetics or walking aids like crutches and canes and you say it's artificial. bullshit. it's just as natural for an asteroid to hit our moon as it is for us to leave a vehicle on it. it's all natural. this is what humans do, by nature. any choice we make, or action we take, conscious or not, is by our nature.
i'll tell you what's unnatural: that which is impossible. it's impossible for us, in our current physiology, to just get up off the ground and fly without help of inventions. we can't do it, and we can't choose to do it. to do it would be unnatural. this is why people pay money to see david blaine levitate only to find out he's standing on the toes of one foot with his back to you. it's not unnatural to levitate using an Osprey jet, or even one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-3Ql7G7qRc. all laws of physics are still being observed.
also, the portion i quoted from you is just plain false. here's one example that is easy to find if you're looking for it. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2010/Animal-behavior-and-warming.aspx
if another earth-like planet is evolving humans on it (i.e. all things being equal), then having seen it done before, it would be quite reasonable to expect them to develop cities, and to pollute and overpopulate them before (if ever) finding a permanent way to cohabitate without doing damage. as it is, damaging our environment is just what we do.
Hey, I'm all for the observation that humans are a part of the natural world -- except for when it's used to dismiss human agency.
boo hoo, but this is just plain wrong. i realize this may be an ego-bruising viewpoint compared to what they teach in church, but you sound an awful lot like a girl i knew who tried to argue with me (almost to the point of screaming) that humans weren't animals but some higher form of life outside the taxonomy of living things. she was wrong, and so are you. we're homo sapiens sapiens, we do what we do because it's our nature to do so, and it's not subject to our biased opinions of ourselves. simply imagine a non-human viewpoint and it becomes obvious. if nature didn't evolve human agency (or any other animal's agency), then what do you think causes it? whatever it is, i'm sure it's good for a laugh.
it's funny how when you free roam GTA for several hours and then go driving IRL you have to stop yourself from ramming full speed into cops.
there are better examples of innovating great graphics than GTA and Rockstar Games, but i agree they do an awesome job. RDR was gorgeous.
nothing else exists except nature, so there cannot be anything that exists or occurs that isn't natural. polluted, overpopulated cities are easily comparable to bacteria colonies. it's just what happens when you ask DNA to grow humans.
MICRO and SOFT are exactly what i want a vagina to be.
nah, lucky RMS. if he'd actually made it to brazil his kidneys could have been "open sourced."
scooters are not a valid solution to this argument. are you going to take both your kids to the doctor on the back of your scooter? maybe you think everyone has time to make trips in order to transport their family. if they have a car already and this is for them to commute, now you're talking double registration and insurance costs, plus extra gas.
i think i should point out that public transportation is great at getting people fired. and not everyone has strong legs, or a bicycle, or can feasibly walk/run/cycle the distance to work. at one point i used to ride my skateboard half an hour to the nearest available bus stop, take the bus to a trolley, take the trolley to another bus, and then skate uphill for 20 minutes to get to work. each way took 2 hours; that was 4 hours of my day gone to commuting. thank god i was a beast of a man in my early twenties. and thank god i didn't have a family to worry about at the time. i didn't have the time or the means to pick up kids from school/babysitter/sports let alone take them to the doctor.
i find your expectation of salary to be amusing too. who makes a minimum wage salary? even if you have the lowest tier health insurance, who says it's enough to pay for your needs?
well, everyone is stupid. there are no qualifiers.
As you are still alive, it shows you didn't actually try any of it's instruction on yourself.
FTFY
and yes, it is a good thing. that recipe for baking banana peel scrapings for 48 hrs to make a hallucinogen would have had me eating fast food for a couple days.
hmmm. i guess. when i follow a recipe i have a pretty good understanding why i'm using what i'm using. if i'm baking bread i know why i use yeast and when i bake cookies i know why i use eggs. when i make a reduction, i know why i'm evaporating water. maybe it's only chefs that do chemistry with food? i was unaware that chemistry can not be practical.
That nugget of information makes it sound like the homeschoolers are not competent teachers, which asks the question "Why are they homeschooling"?
someday there will be a critical mass of people who stop and think about what is being said before jumping to really weak conclusions. here's my assumption: in your tiny universe it's not possible for someone to have learning disabilities regardless of whether or not they attend school.