A cool way to fit it in would be to start the movie just like Wrath of Kahn with Kirk at the helm instead of Savik, except he wins. The Admirals come in, they're furious, but there's nothing they can do, and Kirk becomes a legend, with the audience, the instructors and the other students equally uninformed of the cheat.
That's all WoK fans need, and the uninitiated will be even more surprised when they go back to watch it.
This is just a guess, but aren't some processors able to change the order of instructions? Some subset of these instructions must be interchangeable because they are independent of one another, and these might as well be run in parallel.
You need to learn how to enjoy games, and life, without having to keep up with the posessions of others.
No, he doesn't need to, and in my opinion someone who tries to bind themselves (and others!) into the narrow gameplay envisioned by the devolopers is in more dire need of self reflection.
Just about the only creativity from online gamers these days comes from farmers and griefers
Continuum between varieties with within a species and distinct species.
Geographical distribution based on taxonomy. Why are almost all marsupials in Australia? Why do all prehensile tailed monkeys live in the Americas? Why are all the bird niches in the galapagos filled by finches?
Observed evolution (artificial selection) over millenia.
Homologous structures in diverse species.
Mitochondrial DNA follows taxonomy. (A tasmanian wolf's mitochondrial DNA is closer to a possum's than to a timber wolf's).
Today's species don't exist as fossils in deep strata, with age after age of species that didn't exist in subsequent strata.
And no doubt a whole lot more.
Logic:
Assumption 1: Organisms inherit genetic material from their parents. Assumption 2: But the genetic material can vary from the parents. Assumption 3: An organism's genetics affects its reproductive success.
If you accept all three assumptions, you must accept that organisms evolve and adapt. If you deny evolution, you must deny at least one of the assumptions.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Yet another dumb idea from Plato, the same guy that convinced 2000 years worth of Westerners that the idea of something was more real than the thing itself and caused incalculable suffering.
1. If species were created whole-cloth and not evolved, you would expect some mechanism, probably still on going, that would create them, a process that considering the very large number of species that have existed, and the number of species that have come into existence in modern times, ought to be detectable.
2. If species were created separately and not evolved, you would the relationship between mitochondrial DNA of different species to be based metabolic needs, not by taxonomic heirarchy.
3. If species were created separately and not evolved, you would expect a distinction between species.
These are some pretty obvious tests for ID. It should be noted that noone in 6000 years has bothered to flesh out #1 into a workable theory, and that ID has already been tested on points #2 and #3 and has failed both of them.
How am I, the ignorant American, supposed to know which ones are truly impartial, and which ones are putting their Anti-/Pro-American spin on the news, just like the news companies here in America?
It simply doesn't matter what their bias is. What matters is whether they report honestly.
Take the Wall Street Journal. I disagree very strongly with their bias, but I can't deny it's one of the best papers in the world and worth reading.
I'm not sure I clearly communicated the intent of my car analogy. I was not saying "if car companies were omniscient and omnipotent they could make a safe car". What I'm saying is that it is possible to make a car which has the full capability of safe operation - which cars today do have - and yet the possibility still exists for damage to occur through the use of those machines. Does that mean the car companies created crashes? No.
First, there isn't any truly safe way to operate a car, and second, if car companies were omniscient and omnipotent, then yes, they created crashes, since they foresaw every future crash of their device and had the power to design away from each crash or to reach out their hand and stop each crash as it occurred. Likewise, is it impossible to imagine an omnipotent God who gives humankind free action to do anything except that he reaches out his hand to stop evil? We can chose to drive to Chicago, or New York, but not through the neighbor's kitchen.
Are natural forces evil? I don't think that's relevant. Saying that kids dying of cancer is not evil does not explain why an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god allows it to happen. If God is omnipotent, that physical laws are just a useful fiction, there is none in reality except God's will.
So, if there is no standard by which to measure 'good' (as in the good vs evil sense, not the 'desirable' sense), is there such a thing as good? I do not know how to answer that question.
I think there isn't really a standard. If we were a species or culture that cared nothing for life, would murder and cancer matter to us, would murder still be evil?
Are you justified in valuing the life of your family more than a Pakistani family around the globe?
Imagine a Pentagon planner. Information about a terrorist safe house is forwarded to him, and he gets to make the call among three options: don't strike, strike while warning neighboring families, possibly tipping of terrorists, or strike without warning.
Now imagine by grace of God the call is misrouted to the office of a man who's family lives next to the house. Don't you think his evaluation will be different than the Pentagon planner? Can there be any objective standard to decide who's action would be more "good" and less "evil"?
It's interesting that such a simple question has provided inspiration for the most intricate and airy logical constructions that the world's finests theologians could create for thousands of years, when the obvious answer lies open for the youngest child to grasp.
The only way to be truly benevolent is to allow free will.
That's a strained definition of benevolence.
You haven't considered the notion of free will without evil, for instance:
You could have a crashless car, but you would not have the freedom to choose where the vehicle went or how it operated. That is the only way to guarantee "no crashes".
This is nonsense. If carmakers were omniscient and omnipotent, they could give you a car that would take you any where you wanted to go, but would never crash. Would never hurt anyone. You could do anything you ever could with a normal car...except cause harm.
You also are ignoring the incredible burden of evil and suffering that is through no fault of anyones, was not brought upon them by an act of free will.
They were sneaking Jeff Gannon, a gay prostitute into the whitehouse for overnights. He may have been schtupping Bush, Rove, anyone or everyone, I don't know.
But Bush loves to rub the heads of bald men (Gannon head is glossy), he's on multiple occaisions and out of the blue complemented men on how pretty they are (Britt Hume during an interview, an aide to the former Canadian prime minister). Plus he was a fratboy, a cheerleader, and went to a prep school.
This is the only thing on the list that doesn't bother *me*, but it bothers anyone who thought they were voting for the "Family Values" president.
They will demure from spying on anyone of consequence who might object and derail their plans. Their lists will be continually culled of the famous and the politically connected.
I've heard a GM or two claim a preference to Gurps Lite over GURPS basic. Free, (perhaps with registration), and lacking in minutiae. Haven't tried it myself.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Not in the constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting donations to political campaigns.
The Government has trampled on our 1st Ammend. rights, but to say that consitutionally they can only go so far as to regulate disclosure is a stretch.
On one mud I created a bot that went around stealing as much as possible from other charaters, selling it, and turning the genrated gold over to my main character. Some wizards eventually deduced what I was up to, and teleported both my characters into torture chambers.
They demanded that I admit that both characters were played by me, but of course I played them as if they did not know each other. These wizards then proceeded to torture my characters ingame for over an hour before finally banning them.
To this day I still have no clue what they intended to accomplish with their torture.
Slashdot Mirror
A cool way to fit it in would be to start the movie just like Wrath of Kahn with Kirk at the helm instead of Savik, except he wins. The Admirals come in, they're furious, but there's nothing they can do, and Kirk becomes a legend, with the audience, the instructors and the other students equally uninformed of the cheat.
That's all WoK fans need, and the uninitiated will be even more surprised when they go back to watch it.
This is just a guess, but aren't some processors able to change the order of instructions? Some subset of these instructions must be interchangeable because they are independent of one another, and these might as well be run in parallel.
You need to learn how to enjoy games, and life, without having to keep up with the posessions of others.
No, he doesn't need to, and in my opinion someone who tries to bind themselves (and others!) into the narrow gameplay envisioned by the devolopers is in more dire need of self reflection.
Just about the only creativity from online gamers these days comes from farmers and griefers
Evidence:
Continuum between varieties with within a species and distinct species.
Geographical distribution based on taxonomy. Why are almost all marsupials in Australia? Why do all prehensile tailed monkeys live in the Americas? Why are all the bird niches in the galapagos filled by finches?
Observed evolution (artificial selection) over millenia.
Homologous structures in diverse species.
Mitochondrial DNA follows taxonomy. (A tasmanian wolf's mitochondrial DNA is
closer to a possum's than to a timber wolf's).
Today's species don't exist as fossils in deep strata, with age after age of species that didn't exist in subsequent strata.
And no doubt a whole lot more.
Logic:
Assumption 1: Organisms inherit genetic material from their parents.
Assumption 2: But the genetic material can vary from the parents.
Assumption 3: An organism's genetics affects its reproductive success.
If you accept all three assumptions, you must accept that organisms evolve and adapt. If you deny evolution, you must deny at least one of the assumptions.
Can't God be so dumb that evolution had to do all the work?
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Yet another dumb idea from Plato, the same guy that convinced 2000 years worth of Westerners that the idea of something was more real than the thing itself and caused incalculable suffering.
The species were created and not evolved is testable and it has failed its tests.
I think ID is testable.
1. If species were created whole-cloth and not evolved, you would expect some mechanism, probably still on going, that would create them, a process that considering the very large number of species that have existed, and the number of species that have come into existence in modern times, ought to be detectable.
2. If species were created separately and not evolved, you would the relationship between mitochondrial DNA of different species to be based metabolic needs, not by taxonomic heirarchy.
3. If species were created separately and not evolved, you would expect a distinction between species.
These are some pretty obvious tests for ID. It should be noted that noone in 6000 years has bothered to flesh out #1 into a workable theory, and that ID has already been tested on points #2 and #3 and has failed both of them.
This is also the plot of the Last Temptation of Christ (The book, and for all I know, the movie.)
I suppose you have some evidence that Jesus Christ Superstar is not divinely inspired?
Who knows how long agents have known about this market and skimmed it for material?
How am I, the ignorant American, supposed to know which ones are truly impartial, and which ones are putting their Anti-/Pro-American spin on the news, just like the news companies here in America?
It simply doesn't matter what their bias is. What matters is whether they report honestly.
Take the Wall Street Journal. I disagree very strongly with their bias, but I can't deny it's one of the best papers in the world and worth reading.
I'm not sure I clearly communicated the intent of my car analogy. I was not saying "if car companies were omniscient and omnipotent they could make a safe car". What I'm saying is that it is possible to make a car which has the full capability of safe operation - which cars today do have - and yet the possibility still exists for damage to occur through the use of those machines. Does that mean the car companies created crashes? No.
First, there isn't any truly safe way to operate a car, and second, if car companies were omniscient and omnipotent, then yes, they created crashes, since they foresaw every future crash of their device and had the power to design away from each crash or to reach out their hand and stop each crash as it occurred. Likewise, is it impossible to imagine an omnipotent God who gives humankind free action to do anything except that he reaches out his hand to stop evil? We can chose to drive to Chicago, or New York, but not through the neighbor's kitchen.
Are natural forces evil? I don't think that's relevant. Saying that kids dying of cancer is not evil does not explain why an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god allows it to happen. If God is omnipotent, that physical laws are just a useful fiction, there is none in reality except God's will.
So, if there is no standard by which to measure 'good' (as in the good vs evil sense, not the 'desirable' sense), is there such a thing as good? I do not know how to answer that question.
I think there isn't really a standard. If we were a species or culture that cared nothing for life, would murder and cancer matter to us, would murder still be evil?
Are you justified in valuing the life of your family more than a Pakistani family around the globe?
Imagine a Pentagon planner. Information about a terrorist safe house is forwarded to him, and he gets to make the call among three options: don't strike, strike while warning neighboring families, possibly tipping of terrorists, or strike without warning.
Now imagine by grace of God the call is misrouted to the office of a man who's family lives next to the house. Don't you think his evaluation will be different than the Pentagon planner? Can there be any objective standard to decide who's action would be more "good" and less "evil"?
It's interesting that such a simple question has provided inspiration for the most intricate and airy logical constructions that the world's finests theologians could create for thousands of years, when the obvious answer lies open for the youngest child to grasp.
The only way to be truly benevolent is to allow free will.
That's a strained definition of benevolence.
You haven't considered the notion of free will without evil, for instance:
You could have a crashless car, but you would not have the freedom to choose where the vehicle went or how it operated. That is the only way to guarantee "no crashes".
This is nonsense. If carmakers were omniscient and omnipotent, they could give you a car that would take you any where you wanted to go, but would never crash. Would never hurt anyone. You could do anything you ever could with a normal car...except cause harm.
You also are ignoring the incredible burden of evil and suffering that is through no fault of anyones, was not brought upon them by an act of free will.
They were sneaking Jeff Gannon, a gay prostitute into the whitehouse for overnights. He may have been schtupping Bush, Rove, anyone or everyone, I don't know.
But Bush loves to rub the heads of bald men (Gannon head is glossy), he's on multiple occaisions and out of the blue complemented men on how pretty they are (Britt Hume during an interview, an aide to the former Canadian prime minister). Plus he was a fratboy, a cheerleader, and went to a prep school.
This is the only thing on the list that doesn't bother *me*, but it bothers anyone who thought they were voting for the "Family Values" president.
We, the American people are to blame.
We elected a drunken frat boy to bring honor and dignity back to the whitehouse.
We elected a man who cavorts with gay prositutes to satisfy our "pro-marriage" bigotry.
We elected a man who is beholden to Saudi oil money and Neocon insanity to run a humbler foreign policy.
We elected a man who openly prefers dictatorship (just so long as he's the dictator) to defend the consititution.
Yeah, there're foxes in the hen house, and we put them there, cheering the whole way. Twice.
Without reading the article, I will guess that this sort of advancement will benefit those who have lost their sight but not those who never had it.
I hope it will give you five when it's feeling cool. Nobody does that anymore.
They will demure from spying on anyone of consequence who might object and derail their plans. Their lists will be continually culled of the famous and the politically connected.
Not sure if it's what you want, but OpenRPG has been around for awhile and there are many others like it.
I've heard a GM or two claim a preference to Gurps Lite over GURPS basic. Free, (perhaps with registration), and lacking in minutiae. Haven't tried it myself.
"Congress shall make no law...."
In the consitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Not in the constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting donations to political campaigns.
The Government has trampled on our 1st Ammend. rights, but to say that consitutionally they can only go so far as to regulate disclosure is a stretch.
If people wouldn't miss that point, there wouldn't be a point to be missed.
On one mud I created a bot that went around stealing as much as possible from other charaters, selling it, and turning the genrated gold over to my main character. Some wizards eventually deduced what I was up to, and teleported both my characters into torture chambers.
They demanded that I admit that both characters were played by me, but of course I played them as if they did not know each other. These wizards then proceeded to torture my characters ingame for over an hour before finally banning them.
To this day I still have no clue what they intended to accomplish with their torture.