But unless the game is really brilliant (and there really aren't too many of those for me), I soon start looking for ways to "game" the system, make it do things it wasn't meant to, preferably benefiting me in the process. Congratulations? Nobody else is smart enough to do anything like that?
I honestly don't think a lack of games on the Linux platform inhibits me, considering I own a PS2, PS3 and a WII. I actually haven't played many PC games in quite some time. So what you're saying is that you're more than willing to sink a lot of money in multiple consoles (and presumably all the extra equipment that goes with them) and console video games--owning three consoles is more than most people. So you're definitely a "gamer." But then you say you're not one and that it's because Linux users are superior (which is how "we prefer creating games to playing them" comes across) that more linux video games don't sell?
*scratches head* I'm not quite sure I follow your logic..
Any links showing connection between cat ownership and toxoplasmosis infection?
Additionally, humans are often infected with toxoplasmosis from eating raw or undercooked meat. This is in fact the primary way humans get infected--wikipedia mentions this as the main reason that up to 80% of people in france have come into contact with toxoplasmosis.
Additionally, humans are often infected with toxoplasmosis from eating raw or undercooked meat. This is in fact the primary way humans get infected--wikipedia mentions this as the main reason that up to 80% of people in france have come into contact with toxoplasmosis.
On topic, given that many MALE scientists believe in imaginary superbeings that were made up by some random illiterate guy some thousands of years ago I've never really liked the argument that various religious historic figures were illiterate. For one thing, it frequently disregards historical evidence, and it additionally comes across as a (IMHO stupid) personal attack. Perhaps most importantly though, if you're attacking these characters as stupid uneducated illiterates, doesn't it just make their achievements all the more impressive--miraculous some might even claim?
The claim that Muhammad was illiterate for instance is one denied by many scholars yet embraced by many Muslims--no illiterate could have created the most magnificent highpoint of Arabic literature after all? Right? QED, the Qur'an is divine.
...and a deafening silence from Obama Fan. If this election cycle shows anything, it's that demagoguery and willful ignorance by political fanboys is not limited to any one side of the spectrum...
If you don't like radical, substitute drastic or extreme. Fromwhat he's said he's prepared to take actions that no other US president hasa publicly considered before. I think you must have misread my post. I didn't ask what the definition of a word was. I asked what his "radical" ideas were? That is, which of his ideas are "radical." So far you've been about as specific as Mr Obama in specifying them:-)
Mobile phone outages--I've never had a huge problem with dropped calls, though I've certainly had them. My main complaint would be sometimes/frequently poor reception. In my apartment I can go from getting max evdo speeds to occasionally being kicked to analogue?! I don't get it.
DSL/cable speeds--don't have much to complain about here. No downtime/connectivity issues that I can remember, I have one of the "smaller" plans getting around 12mbps down/3mbps up from cox cable, for around $35/month. Fios is out there too. Honestly, I don't really need more. It's plenty to skype/WoW/slashdot all I want:-)
In the past 5 years I've lived in VA and Chicago. I've had no internet troubles in VA. In Chicago I did have a FEW outages which I believe were related to wiring problems in the very old apartment building I was living in (just a guess). Never had any cable tv problems.
While I appreciate your smartass reply, as I myself am inclined to the occasional smartass comment, please see the FIRST sentence of my post where I ask "Are these kind of outages really so common?" I'm asking for data/anecdotes (data's just the plural of anecdote, right?), or whatever.
Are these kind of outages really so common? Mobiles phones I absolutely agree with. ON the other hand, I literally cannot remember the last time I lost cable or my internet. I've literally lost power more frequently than either of them (maybe 4 times in the past year) and lost water once. Emails not making it to their destination--again, does this really happen? In the decade plus I've been using internet email, I can't off the top of my head ever think of any "lost" email unless it was sent to a wrong address or something.
Ok, so you're pointing out that you're smart enough to have figured out the "absurdity" in dressing nicely. You also claim to not have negative feelings about anyone dressing in a suit--and then proceed to list several ridiculous traits that you think about people in suits. Come on seriously, enough with the stereotypes! Free thinking FTW!!
Not to really detract from your point (with which I agree), but I would just say that our modern knowledge of medieval literacy is a bit different than older theories. Not bringing up other evidence, the mere fact that within 30 years of Gutenberg's invention of the press that every city of any size in Europe from Andalusia to Hungary had a printing press (literally within 30 years--the rate of advance was staggering!) gives some clues about how many people really were literate--after all, you don't need presses if there's nobody who can read.
I don't understand how there is any expectation of privacy on facebook? I mean, it's a social networking site--the only reason to put anything on facebook is for people to see it!
The fact is that you've remained a Republican while your Party has attacked and betrayed everything it ever said it stood for. Paul is just the latest beard. You conveniently ignore that Paul's "limited government" wouldn't limit how religion has a grip on it, but then that's the Republican Party all over for the past quarter century. And you conveniently ignore that just those few important, unambiguous policies I cited show that Paul is completely out of his mind. I'm not going to make excuses for the past 8 years. I'm not the biggest fan, and the republican congress deserved to get the shit kicked out of it. I vote for people whose stands I like, not parties (again with the partisanship in your response!). I will not reply to your point, but, since you seemed unable to find it, I will link to the reply I referred you to. It's quite simple. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=394484&cid=21766976 . Nice ad hominem attacks YET again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
I'm not "very, very upset" over the PM troll "gun control" category that - again - has nothing to do with Science/Tech policy, Look, since you seem unable to understand this very simple issue, I cannot argue with you. People care about gun control. If popular _mechanics_ wants to put gun control in their grid, they can. That's freedom of the press. Maybe their readers are actually interested in it:-)
I think you're putting your money where your brain is. Thank you, yet again for proving that you are ruled by your emotions and incapable of debating actual issues. Read your previous paragraph before you started slandering me personally. You erratically jump around from flying cars to Abramoff to Iraq to Tom Delay to "chinese gangsters"... wow. Does it not seem silly to you? Please, stop hurting the country. We do NOT need more partisanship like this!!
Honestly it makes you completely out of touch with reality. I don't agree, but I think that's obvious!
If you support Ron Paul, then you obviously stand firmly against the Republican platform of "bigger more intrusive government than even the Democrats, and religious extremism". I think that if you think republicans are for a "bgger more intrusive government than even the Democrats" that you're not quite in touch! Not that the differences are huge, but in the Republican party there are still many people that want a smaller government. No, Bush is not one of them. I think many people forget what Democrats will do in power though--we'll see in 2008, I guess! The truth of the matter is that the Republican primary is the only place where candidates are even debating the role of government and the role of federalism--the preeminence of a large federal government is taken 100% for granted by al of the democrat candidates.
Seriously, unless that's what you support, then you'd have a hard time finding a way to work more against your own interests than voting Republican. Granted Paul is quite different than Republicans (since he's a Libertarian), which is why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination. I agree he doesn't have a snowballs chance in winning. No republicans I personally know don't believe in evolution. Paul is NOT a Libertarian, get your facts straight--he's a Republican, that's his party, how he identifies, and why he says he will NOT run as a 3rd party candidate. You seem to have a very caricatured view of Republicans! That's something I've run into a lot when I've lived in some areas outside of the south.. kind of interesting to me.
So, all your stated views/actions say about you is that you really haven't been paying any attention at all for the last 30 years or so. Well, that or you really really hate yourself and think you deserve to be punished. Again with the ad hominems--never understand why certain people feel the need to get so _personal_ with their politics! It's sometimes a good idea to relax, take a step back and a deep breath, and reexamine the situation.
_Popular Mechanics routinely reports on the state of the flying cars dream. Flying cars are "science & tech", a relevant, if marginal, subject for _Popular Mechanics_ to report to its readers on.
"Gun control" has nothing to do with _Popular Mechanics'_ subject matter. That's not a nonsequitur. I really think you're confused here. It's a really quite simple issue. Popular Mechanics made a grid (lame though it may be!) of candidate positions on a handful of issues. That's it. You seem to be very, very upset that gun control is one of the issues they listed. Because apparently, popular mechanics is only allowed to talk about flying cars? Again, explain to me simply, what's the problem with a magazine listing politicians views on a subject that a LOT of people--left AND right--care about? I'm strongly reminded of hen Jon Stewart destroyed Tucker on crossfire--stop hurting the country! We don't need more partisan hacks! Especially not this random partisan anger over the mere inclusion of an issue on a grid?!
FYI: A non sequitur is something that doesn't follow. "Gun control" isn't the non sequitur, you randomly bringing up flying cars (not a policy issue for one thing!) is the non sequitur--that which does not follow the rest of the discussion.
And this is the exact kind of blind spot that Republicans who are now so deeply in denial that they'll insist "no, I'm really a libertarian" will immediately run to. So I called them out. That's what politics is like: people often display their bad judgement and its baggage with a brand name attached. Like I said, I'm a registered republican--I make no bones of that. 10 years ago, in my younger days I did identify as a big-L libertarian--no more. What exactly are you attempting to call me out on? I've been absolutely clear on what I believe. You're jumping around so much that I'm seriously confused here.
And you just paid to make all that happen. You're "pro-choice", but you just paid for life to begin at conception. And to destroy the separation between church & state. You're paying to prove me right. What else should I expect from someone who can't tell a sequitur from a strawman? Please see my other post is this thread. The US really does not need more of your "either with us, or against us politics." There are issues upon which reasonable people can disagree. I don't think there is any politicians--republican or democrat--that I agree with 100%. If there was, I would be worried!;-)
The thing about Ron Paul is he wants the fed govt as far out of people's lives as it can be. Who cares about his position on birth control / whatever, when the government doesn't have any power? I donated to Paul because he is the only politician from either party who seems to actually BELIEVE in a limited government. Do I think he has a chance to win? No. I guess you could say I'm putting my money where my mouth is?
OK, then where's the "Flying Cars" column? Nice, so you follow your strawman with a non sequitur. I'm not buying it! They picked a list of issues that are regularly polled and people care about... what's the problem?
"Gun control" is not science. You're just contriving an argument because you're a Republican. Now tell me that you're really a "Libertarian". Again, stop straw manning, that's just silly! No one claimed gun control is science--why are you trying to pretend they did?
Going from your non sequitur to your attempted ad hominem, I'm a registered republican, I've donated to Ron Paul, I'm pro-choice, I believe in evolution. You tell me what that makes me;-)
I think you must be confused somehow.. Please, if you're going to be preachy, it might help to post better info. My post was,
Whoa, I had no idea Ron Paul wants condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, onanism, etc to be illegal. Can you provide a link to back that up please? Nowhere on your link is anything remotely like what I said suggested. Ron Paul wants to get the federal government out of EVERYTHING. That's why he wants to block funding. Let me explain simply. From your link "H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity." This does not make abortion illegal. This does not make family planning illegal. This doesn't make ANY actions illegal. This makes the *FEDERAL* government funding such things illegal. States--fine. Private people--fine. Hospitals--fine.
I find this topic very interesting--it seems to me that more and more people (primarily on the left, but certainly on the right as well) are so used to a huge and all encompassing federal government, that many people DO, like you, get confused that cutting federal funding is the same as making something illegal. We saw the same thing with stem cell research. Even on slashdot, a place full of generally well informed geeks and science wonks, you see statements like "bush made stem cell research illegal." That's not remotely close to the truth, and quite frankly, FUD--just as your post is.
I'm mixed on the zygote issue. I do think that abortion is killing a life and that it's a horrible thing to have to do... but... sometimes it's gotta happen, and for utilitarian reasons, probably better that it does. That doesn't make someone that thinks life starts at conception a cook. If libertarians / objectivists view an individual life as of great importance, is it any wonder that new lives are considered as important as old lives? You're viewing the issue of an abortion solely through the lens of "it's a woman's freedom to control her body." He's looking at the issue through the lens of "there's a new life with a right to live." I really hate this kind of "you're either with us, or you're against us" politics...
The better question is, whoever claimed that "gun control" is science? Nobody! That's just some strawman you're throwing out there. Popular mechanics wrote the article to track candidate's positions on issues of importance to their readers.
It may not fit in with your doctrine, but there are a lot of people who are into guns out there, and I am not surprised that a lot of them read popular mechanics!
You nailed it on the head--Republican conspiracy. Same reason Kucinich was left off the chart--I bet they were ready to put the guy polling 1% nationally on their chart, but then Karl Rove called them up and ordered them not to. And of course, as you well know, questions of gun control (it's come up recently in DC for example) only matter to NRA-bumper-sticker-totin nuts, and not for instance, a lot of urban dwellers who might like to see those guns off the streets?
Whoa, I had no idea Ron Paul wants condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, onanism, etc to be illegal. Can you provide a link to back that up please?
Slashdot Mirror
*scratches head* I'm not quite sure I follow your logic..
Any links showing connection between cat ownership and toxoplasmosis infection?
Additionally, humans are often infected with toxoplasmosis from eating raw or undercooked meat. This is in fact the primary way humans get infected--wikipedia mentions this as the main reason that up to 80% of people in france have come into contact with toxoplasmosis.
Additionally, humans are often infected with toxoplasmosis from eating raw or undercooked meat. This is in fact the primary way humans get infected--wikipedia mentions this as the main reason that up to 80% of people in france have come into contact with toxoplasmosis.
The claim that Muhammad was illiterate for instance is one denied by many scholars yet embraced by many Muslims--no illiterate could have created the most magnificent highpoint of Arabic literature after all? Right? QED, the Qur'an is divine.
And so forth...
...and a deafening silence from Obama Fan. If this election cycle shows anything, it's that demagoguery and willful ignorance by political fanboys is not limited to any one side of the spectrum...
Just out of curiosity, what are Obama's "radical" ideas on fixing the US?
Thanks very much for the video link--very cool!
Mobile phone outages--I've never had a huge problem with dropped calls, though I've certainly had them. My main complaint would be sometimes/frequently poor reception. In my apartment I can go from getting max evdo speeds to occasionally being kicked to analogue?! I don't get it.
:-)
DSL/cable speeds--don't have much to complain about here. No downtime/connectivity issues that I can remember, I have one of the "smaller" plans getting around 12mbps down/3mbps up from cox cable, for around $35/month. Fios is out there too. Honestly, I don't really need more. It's plenty to skype/WoW/slashdot all I want
In the past 5 years I've lived in VA and Chicago. I've had no internet troubles in VA. In Chicago I did have a FEW outages which I believe were related to wiring problems in the very old apartment building I was living in (just a guess). Never had any cable tv problems.
While I appreciate your smartass reply, as I myself am inclined to the occasional smartass comment, please see the FIRST sentence of my post where I ask "Are these kind of outages really so common?" I'm asking for data/anecdotes (data's just the plural of anecdote, right?), or whatever.
thanks!
Are these kind of outages really so common? Mobiles phones I absolutely agree with. ON the other hand, I literally cannot remember the last time I lost cable or my internet. I've literally lost power more frequently than either of them (maybe 4 times in the past year) and lost water once. Emails not making it to their destination--again, does this really happen? In the decade plus I've been using internet email, I can't off the top of my head ever think of any "lost" email unless it was sent to a wrong address or something.
Ok, so you're pointing out that you're smart enough to have figured out the "absurdity" in dressing nicely. You also claim to not have negative feelings about anyone dressing in a suit--and then proceed to list several ridiculous traits that you think about people in suits. Come on seriously, enough with the stereotypes! Free thinking FTW!!
Wow, I think you two have just majorly discredited the geek ideals of not being asses to other people for superficial as heck reasons!!
Huh, and I thought geeks usually prided themselves on not caring about appearances. ~shrug~
Not to really detract from your point (with which I agree), but I would just say that our modern knowledge of medieval literacy is a bit different than older theories. Not bringing up other evidence, the mere fact that within 30 years of Gutenberg's invention of the press that every city of any size in Europe from Andalusia to Hungary had a printing press (literally within 30 years--the rate of advance was staggering!) gives some clues about how many people really were literate--after all, you don't need presses if there's nobody who can read.
I don't understand how there is any expectation of privacy on facebook? I mean, it's a social networking site--the only reason to put anything on facebook is for people to see it!
Well, that or you really really hate yourself and think you deserve to be punished. Again with the ad hominems--never understand why certain people feel the need to get so _personal_ with their politics! It's sometimes a good idea to relax, take a step back and a deep breath, and reexamine the situation.
"Gun control" has nothing to do with _Popular Mechanics'_ subject matter. That's not a nonsequitur. I really think you're confused here. It's a really quite simple issue. Popular Mechanics made a grid (lame though it may be!) of candidate positions on a handful of issues. That's it. You seem to be very, very upset that gun control is one of the issues they listed. Because apparently, popular mechanics is only allowed to talk about flying cars? Again, explain to me simply, what's the problem with a magazine listing politicians views on a subject that a LOT of people--left AND right--care about? I'm strongly reminded of hen Jon Stewart destroyed Tucker on crossfire--stop hurting the country! We don't need more partisan hacks! Especially not this random partisan anger over the mere inclusion of an issue on a grid?!
FYI: A non sequitur is something that doesn't follow. "Gun control" isn't the non sequitur, you randomly bringing up flying cars (not a policy issue for one thing!) is the non sequitur--that which does not follow the rest of the discussion. And this is the exact kind of blind spot that Republicans who are now so deeply in denial that they'll insist "no, I'm really a libertarian" will immediately run to. So I called them out. That's what politics is like: people often display their bad judgement and its baggage with a brand name attached. Like I said, I'm a registered republican--I make no bones of that. 10 years ago, in my younger days I did identify as a big-L libertarian--no more. What exactly are you attempting to call me out on? I've been absolutely clear on what I believe. You're jumping around so much that I'm seriously confused here. And you just paid to make all that happen. You're "pro-choice", but you just paid for life to begin at conception. And to destroy the separation between church & state. You're paying to prove me right. What else should I expect from someone who can't tell a sequitur from a strawman? Please see my other post is this thread. The US really does not need more of your "either with us, or against us politics." There are issues upon which reasonable people can disagree. I don't think there is any politicians--republican or democrat--that I agree with 100%. If there was, I would be worried!
The thing about Ron Paul is he wants the fed govt as far out of people's lives as it can be. Who cares about his position on birth control / whatever, when the government doesn't have any power? I donated to Paul because he is the only politician from either party who seems to actually BELIEVE in a limited government. Do I think he has a chance to win? No. I guess you could say I'm putting my money where my mouth is?
Going from your non sequitur to your attempted ad hominem, I'm a registered republican, I've donated to Ron Paul, I'm pro-choice, I believe in evolution. You tell me what that makes me
I find this topic very interesting--it seems to me that more and more people (primarily on the left, but certainly on the right as well) are so used to a huge and all encompassing federal government, that many people DO, like you, get confused that cutting federal funding is the same as making something illegal. We saw the same thing with stem cell research. Even on slashdot, a place full of generally well informed geeks and science wonks, you see statements like "bush made stem cell research illegal." That's not remotely close to the truth, and quite frankly, FUD--just as your post is.
I'm mixed on the zygote issue. I do think that abortion is killing a life and that it's a horrible thing to have to do... but... sometimes it's gotta happen, and for utilitarian reasons, probably better that it does. That doesn't make someone that thinks life starts at conception a cook. If libertarians / objectivists view an individual life as of great importance, is it any wonder that new lives are considered as important as old lives? You're viewing the issue of an abortion solely through the lens of "it's a woman's freedom to control her body." He's looking at the issue through the lens of "there's a new life with a right to live." I really hate this kind of "you're either with us, or you're against us" politics...
The better question is, whoever claimed that "gun control" is science? Nobody! That's just some strawman you're throwing out there. Popular mechanics wrote the article to track candidate's positions on issues of importance to their readers.
It may not fit in with your doctrine, but there are a lot of people who are into guns out there, and I am not surprised that a lot of them read popular mechanics!
You nailed it on the head--Republican conspiracy. Same reason Kucinich was left off the chart--I bet they were ready to put the guy polling 1% nationally on their chart, but then Karl Rove called them up and ordered them not to. And of course, as you well know, questions of gun control (it's come up recently in DC for example) only matter to NRA-bumper-sticker-totin nuts, and not for instance, a lot of urban dwellers who might like to see those guns off the streets?
Whoa, I had no idea Ron Paul wants condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, onanism, etc to be illegal. Can you provide a link to back that up please?