Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people can steal your stereo through your AP. They might be able to get your porn collection though, which I'm guessing is just as bad.
Am I the only person that thinks it looks like standard lense glare? All of the other stars around it have similar effects, but they aren't nearly as drastic because they aren't nearly as bright, thus they simply look like blurry rings instead of prismatic (is that the right word???) effects.
Let's be honest here. Microsoft doesn't release the best software, but it's well beyond beta testing phase when they start charging for it.
I'm not a huge fan of MS (I use Macs at home) but be realistic. You simply can't produce that much code and find all the problems in any realistic time schedule. Furthermore, you can't recreate as many different possible hardware/software combinations as the user base will. It's just not possible. Let's cut MS a break on this one at least. there are far worse things to fry them for than this.
Gotcha. For some reason I was thinking the bill would show Watt hours, but had it labelled as kWH or something. Anyway, I guess I can get my math messed up as easily as anyone.
Did I miss something or did the "Calculate your Costs" table get something wrong when converting KWH to WH. It says to multiply KWH*1000 to get WH, but shouldn't it be divide by 1000? Am I misunderstanding the kWH measurement used in my electricity bill?
Yachting is for the super rich. Sailing doesn't have to be. One implies a certain size and "luxury" conditions, while the other just implies a boat that is wind powered.
Yes an old boat can be cheap, but most places don't have clubs or moorings with prices that low. At least not in the US...I can't speak for Brittain, where the parent poster obviously is.
"The Bible says that if you move close to God, He'll move close to you. Are you *really* sure it's God's fault and not your own that you lack a relationship with Him?"
Always blaming the student instead of the teacher. This is a big problem people have with religion. For those who believe it's obvious, but if you happen to not believe you're the one who's doing something wrong. It couldn't possibly be because the "truth" isn't really there, or that praying has no tangible returns.
I have no patience for a "god" that demands I pray to it, but doesn't respond in any way and then tries to say that's somehow my fault for "praying wrong" or some other nonsense. Please explain to me exactly, how you can be at fault for not having a relationship with god if you actively pursue one?
While I've already said in other comments that if there is an omnipotent God/creator in the Christian sense, I will dispute this statement as a copout:
"The part that is hard to accept is that God is perfectly wise and always makes the best choice. It's not possible for you or I to understand and it's not our place to understand. Assume for a second that the Christian God is real. Does it make sense for you to argue with how he's set things up? Do you *really* think that in your limited capacity of logic and reason that you can understand the nature of His universe and all his laws?"
Saying that God created man in His image, but then saying man has no capacity for understanding God is a load of crap. If you believe in a "just" God and an all-forgiving God, then how can you reconcile the fact that such a God does not, in fact, forgive?
As for the Fat Tony analogy, I think it was dead on. The house hasn't burned down through no fault of Tony's. In fact your Christian Bible says God will "rain fire", thus effectively starting the fire. If we've been given the ultimatum, "accept me or be damned to hell" before such a fire (as you say we have) then the Fat Tony analogy is perfect. Give me what I want or I'll burn down your house sounds very close to "accept me or I'll cause your world to burn for all eternity". I ask you, in such as statement, where is the justness that you attribute to God?
With respect to you "Jesus visited them in their dreams" statements, that works both ways. Plenty of Christian convert to other faiths for similar reasons... that doesn't make it proof of any existence of their divinity any more than yours proves the existence of Jesus/God.
"If he wanted to do that why would he send Jesus whose entire message was about love? Wouldn't He do something else?" You make the big assumption that that is truth. While millions of people believe it, there is no evidence that Jesus was in fact crucified and raised again. Believing that Jesus was somehow struck from the loin of God and that Mary was, in fact, a virgin giving birth (which is often attributed to a poor translation) doesn't make it so. Millions of others don't believe it. Was Jesus a good man? I don't think there's any question that someone who we now call Jesus did great things. There are other people who did great things and had similar teachings but no one seems to believe they died "for our sins". Jesus died for being a revolutionary, not because he was a God and just saying he was so doesn't make it so.
That's the problem with faith...you have to believe it in order to believe it. It's circular, and convenient for the believer, but doesn't do anything to win over the unbeliever until they have some sort of epiphany (like your dream example) that causes them to believe. YOu can't answer questions of God with science and God can't answer questions of science. Convenient, but not a good way to convince people God exists.
To answer your questions, though I don't think they were actually directed at my post:
1) There is no way an omnipotent, omnicient being created us "in God's image". To say so is simply arrogance. If any single being created the universe we have no concept of understanding the true magnificence of such a thing. The human mind can't comprehend the scale of astonomical numbers, much less the ability to cause them into being. Man created God in his image, so that we can understand that which is beyond our understanding.
2) This is the sticking point for all major religions, at least for me. I have no answer except that karma seems to happen and I tend to attribute that to the universe, not a single entity.
3) If there is an entity as you suggest I don't think it would need to change. I attribute that again to the nature of man not being able to understand that which could be God. Think of it thus, young children don't understand the concept of age. To a 3 year old a 20 year old seems really old but not significantly different than a 40 year old, while the child does understand the difference between a 3 year old and a 20 year old. As the child grows, the knowledge of time becomes more complete and that child begins to understand the difference between 20 and 40. If there is a God/creator, we are like the 3 year old and that God is like the 40 year old...we can't fathom what that really means in relation to the changes that will occur in that space of time.
4) The source of information is man. We have seen changes and "new translations" in our lifetimes so there is no reason to think the "word of God" is exact and correct. I think most of the major religious books have a good understanding of the "intent of the word" but to think that word is verbatim or not been manipulated by man is short-sighted at best.
5) See 4.
6)I don't believe God is fair or unfair. I think things happen in life that make people want "fair" but people die and bad things happen to good people. If there is an all powerful God, it has a plan but we are incapable of understanding that plan. Fair or unfair are human judgements and can't be attributed to an entity powerful enough to create the univers. As with 4, the intent of the word (in all the major religions), is to be a "good" person and treat others well. "Do no harm", if you will, so your question of the necessity of religion can be responded to negatively, at least with regard to this aspect of the purpose of religion. Unfortunately religion plays more of a role than just proving who should and shouldn't be rewarded. Religion brings people together, it gives them hope where they might otherwise not have it, it gives them strength to do things they might not otherwise be able to do. It provides guidance when they are lost... religion is more than just a club to see who does or does not get to the next stage of spiritual evolution.
6) I would say no to this question. If there is indeed a God who wants us to be good to our fellow beings on this planet, then I don't think that being needs our worship, or desires it. The best thing to do to please such an entity, is to Love and teach that love to everyone you can.
7. All are right, and all are wrong. Taking the common teachings of each will give you the closest approximation of what people should be doing. At least that's my belief after 25 or so years of reading the different texts and scholarly books about religion.
I doubt I have actually answered any of your questions, but they certainly made me think, and for that I will thank you.
"Not trolling: are you careful to question Athiesm itself? (as a negative can't technically be proven...)"
Not being a "believer" or an "atheist" I question everything. That's my point, exactly. Sure there are plenty of religious people who question. In my experience, they are drowned out by the noise of the ones who don't. My experience is limited, but I've been looking at various religions for nearly 25 years in multiple countries, and that's the conclusion I have.
There are certainly people of every faith who believe because of their questions, but I've found fewer of them than those who believe because they're "supposed to". I think that trend is changing, and more people are questioning now than ever before, but in my experience the non-questioning beleivers are still in the majority.
"The God of the Bible doesn't want mindless drones, people do."
That's exactly why "believers" is in quotes in my original post. Far too many people consider themselves "christian" without understanding what that really means. Ask them to explain what the teachings of Christ were, and they (the ones who don't question) invariably start spouting off about morality and the fact that you have to "accept Christ" to "get into heaven". Your example of the scripture is correct but I would wager less than 50% of "believers" do anything like that. Of course I have no way of proving that figure, it's just my anecedotal evidence so you may have a different experience.
It happens with Islam too, but I've found more Muslims tend to really read the words of the Koran, and not just accept what they're being told as gospel...maybe because of the bad rap Islam has gotten over the last 30 years or so.
Being raised Southern Baptist, and studying various religions for the last 25 years or so, I have found that most people attend church not because they really want to be "christ-like" but because they are societally expected to attend church. It's social, not spiritual. There are definitely exceptions to that rule, but that is how I have come to experience religion in 3 countries and multiple different faiths.
As for your assertion that I think God doesn't allow questioning, I never said that. If there is an active God who is omnipotent and omnicient, that God most certainly gives us free will. How else would it be possible to explain different religions, and atheists? I can't argue with you at all, other than to say you misinterpreted my assertion about "believers" to be a statement about God, which it wasn't.
That's not what the comment you linked to said. It simply said to "maximize efficiency". Nowhere does it imply that the cell isn't as efficient as current flat plate technology is. Further, it stated that a hybrid cell using this technology (and some other one I don't know about) can get 60-70% efficiency, though the comment didn't cite anything to back that up.
As for the heat, why not just cyphon off some of the energy to power some cooling fans built into the frame of the panel? I don't know if it would work well enough, but I'm sure it would be at least somewhat effective.
All right, I'll take the bait. Define "decent rock climber" and what does campus boarding have to do with decent climbing? I'll grant you that building strength is good for climbers, but most of the climbers I know have never once used a campus board and they've been climbing (at various different ranges of difficulty) for many years. 1 fingered pullups are for the movies and essentially useless in 99.8% of outdoor climbing in the world.
I'm going to assume you mean indoor gym "climbers" and sport climbers, which typically need more grip strength than the folks I climb with... who are primarily mountaineers and trad climbers.
Just because people have different ideas of right and wrong doesn't mean right and wrong don't exist. It simply means that what IS right and wrong is open to interpretation. They most definitely exist, though, and we are the only creatures (that I'm aware of) on the planet which make the distinction, thus, we "make it so".
Oh come now, there've been plenty of foriegn television (specifically British) and movies in the US. Of course, they're always remade with Americans, but we like foriegn media plenty./sarcasm
My original post was to a parent post asking how to prevent the kids from playing violent video games. There was no assertion in my post that presumed a hatred of tech, or that children should be denied any luxuries. Forgive me if I don't agree that such a position is unreasonable.
I'm not sure where you get the idea I think "most other people are wrong" but again, I'll disagree with you there. My statement made no such assertion. It simply made the assertion that anything resembling a post that doesn't wholeheartedly support proliferation of tech is considered a bad thing here for some reason. At least by some, others seemed to find the post "insightful", which may or may not be accurate.
Obviously you're one of those people who sees black and white... either you love tech or you hate it. I'm not. I think there are varying degrees of usefulness, and I addressed one level of them. I subsequently addressed several others, but you might not have seen those posts.
Uh, where exactly did I say forbid getting it? I said "don't buy it". Those are not equal statements at all.
As for your example, maybe you just grew up enough to start focusing on what was important to you. Maybe you finally reached a stage where school wasn't boring to you. Maybe your metabolism changed just enough not to have distracting energy that your body was trying to burn. Or maybe games were really good for you.
I also don't see how being forbidden a game system as a child did you any harm at all. Did I miss something?
Not buying video games isn't the same as not providing for your childrens less obvious needs.
Why is it that people take every comment that shuns tech for other options as an insult and some sort of ridiculous extremist position? Kids get along just fine without video games in most of the world. They learn hand-eye coordination through sports or in some of the worse scenarios through working. They learn social skills by, oh noessocializing with other kids. They learn problem solving skills by solving the problems they encounter naturally.
Sure video games have a place. They're fun, they're entertaining, they even provide some important skills and lessons, when chosen carefully. I'm not disputing that. There's a big difference between saying kids don't need them and saying "kids only need food and shelter". Get a grip.
I didn't say there are no benefits to video games. I said children don't need them. There's a big difference. I played games as a kid, all kinds of games. It's not hard to find games that don't show violence or gore, and it's also not that hard to go out and play catch with you kid, thereby teaching the same hand-eye coordination. There are also far more social outlets than video games so I won't even bother with that one. For teaching problem solving skills, I'd rather my kid play an RPG or something but there are certainly good video games that combine both the hand-eye coordination and problem solving without the violence. I will reiterate my point though, kids don't need video games. There are plenty of other options.
Most companies I've worked for won't allow personal equipment to be used like that. Sure, you can bring in your ergo chair and your personal radio (no streaming media here) but don't even think about bringing in your PC equipment to enhance your work. That's not allowed, specifically because of auditing.
Good luck trying to do that when you get into the workforce...maybe you'll have better luck than I have.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people can steal your stereo through your AP. They might be able to get your porn collection though, which I'm guessing is just as bad.
Am I the only person that thinks it looks like standard lense glare? All of the other stars around it have similar effects, but they aren't nearly as drastic because they aren't nearly as bright, thus they simply look like blurry rings instead of prismatic (is that the right word???) effects.
Let's be honest here. Microsoft doesn't release the best software, but it's well beyond beta testing phase when they start charging for it.
I'm not a huge fan of MS (I use Macs at home) but be realistic. You simply can't produce that much code and find all the problems in any realistic time schedule. Furthermore, you can't recreate as many different possible hardware/software combinations as the user base will. It's just not possible. Let's cut MS a break on this one at least. there are far worse things to fry them for than this.
Gotcha. For some reason I was thinking the bill would show Watt hours, but had it labelled as kWH or something. Anyway, I guess I can get my math messed up as easily as anyone.
Did I miss something or did the "Calculate your Costs" table get something wrong when converting KWH to WH. It says to multiply KWH*1000 to get WH, but shouldn't it be divide by 1000? Am I misunderstanding the kWH measurement used in my electricity bill?
Yachting is for the super rich. Sailing doesn't have to be. One implies a certain size and "luxury" conditions, while the other just implies a boat that is wind powered.
Yes an old boat can be cheap, but most places don't have clubs or moorings with prices that low. At least not in the US...I can't speak for Brittain, where the parent poster obviously is.
"The Bible says that if you move close to God, He'll move close to you. Are you *really* sure it's God's fault and not your own that you lack a relationship with Him?"
Always blaming the student instead of the teacher. This is a big problem people have with religion. For those who believe it's obvious, but if you happen to not believe you're the one who's doing something wrong. It couldn't possibly be because the "truth" isn't really there, or that praying has no tangible returns.
I have no patience for a "god" that demands I pray to it, but doesn't respond in any way and then tries to say that's somehow my fault for "praying wrong" or some other nonsense. Please explain to me exactly, how you can be at fault for not having a relationship with god if you actively pursue one?
While I've already said in other comments that if there is an omnipotent God/creator in the Christian sense, I will dispute this statement as a copout:
"The part that is hard to accept is that God is perfectly wise and always makes the best choice. It's not possible for you or I to understand and it's not our place to understand. Assume for a second that the Christian God is real. Does it make sense for you to argue with how he's set things up? Do you *really* think that in your limited capacity of logic and reason that you can understand the nature of His universe and all his laws?"
Saying that God created man in His image, but then saying man has no capacity for understanding God is a load of crap. If you believe in a "just" God and an all-forgiving God, then how can you reconcile the fact that such a God does not, in fact, forgive?
As for the Fat Tony analogy, I think it was dead on. The house hasn't burned down through no fault of Tony's. In fact your Christian Bible says God will "rain fire", thus effectively starting the fire. If we've been given the ultimatum, "accept me or be damned to hell" before such a fire (as you say we have) then the Fat Tony analogy is perfect. Give me what I want or I'll burn down your house sounds very close to "accept me or I'll cause your world to burn for all eternity". I ask you, in such as statement, where is the justness that you attribute to God?
With respect to you "Jesus visited them in their dreams" statements, that works both ways. Plenty of Christian convert to other faiths for similar reasons... that doesn't make it proof of any existence of their divinity any more than yours proves the existence of Jesus/God.
"If he wanted to do that why would he send Jesus whose entire message was about love? Wouldn't He do something else?" You make the big assumption that that is truth. While millions of people believe it, there is no evidence that Jesus was in fact crucified and raised again. Believing that Jesus was somehow struck from the loin of God and that Mary was, in fact, a virgin giving birth (which is often attributed to a poor translation) doesn't make it so. Millions of others don't believe it. Was Jesus a good man? I don't think there's any question that someone who we now call Jesus did great things. There are other people who did great things and had similar teachings but no one seems to believe they died "for our sins". Jesus died for being a revolutionary, not because he was a God and just saying he was so doesn't make it so.
That's the problem with faith...you have to believe it in order to believe it. It's circular, and convenient for the believer, but doesn't do anything to win over the unbeliever until they have some sort of epiphany (like your dream example) that causes them to believe. YOu can't answer questions of God with science and God can't answer questions of science. Convenient, but not a good way to convince people God exists.
To answer your questions, though I don't think they were actually directed at my post:
1) There is no way an omnipotent, omnicient being created us "in God's image". To say so is simply arrogance. If any single being created the universe we have no concept of understanding the true magnificence of such a thing. The human mind can't comprehend the scale of astonomical numbers, much less the ability to cause them into being. Man created God in his image, so that we can understand that which is beyond our understanding.
2) This is the sticking point for all major religions, at least for me. I have no answer except that karma seems to happen and I tend to attribute that to the universe, not a single entity.
3) If there is an entity as you suggest I don't think it would need to change. I attribute that again to the nature of man not being able to understand that which could be God. Think of it thus, young children don't understand the concept of age. To a 3 year old a 20 year old seems really old but not significantly different than a 40 year old, while the child does understand the difference between a 3 year old and a 20 year old. As the child grows, the knowledge of time becomes more complete and that child begins to understand the difference between 20 and 40. If there is a God/creator, we are like the 3 year old and that God is like the 40 year old...we can't fathom what that really means in relation to the changes that will occur in that space of time.
4) The source of information is man. We have seen changes and "new translations" in our lifetimes so there is no reason to think the "word of God" is exact and correct. I think most of the major religious books have a good understanding of the "intent of the word" but to think that word is verbatim or not been manipulated by man is short-sighted at best.
5) See 4.
6)I don't believe God is fair or unfair. I think things happen in life that make people want "fair" but people die and bad things happen to good people. If there is an all powerful God, it has a plan but we are incapable of understanding that plan. Fair or unfair are human judgements and can't be attributed to an entity powerful enough to create the univers. As with 4, the intent of the word (in all the major religions), is to be a "good" person and treat others well. "Do no harm", if you will, so your question of the necessity of religion can be responded to negatively, at least with regard to this aspect of the purpose of religion. Unfortunately religion plays more of a role than just proving who should and shouldn't be rewarded. Religion brings people together, it gives them hope where they might otherwise not have it, it gives them strength to do things they might not otherwise be able to do. It provides guidance when they are lost... religion is more than just a club to see who does or does not get to the next stage of spiritual evolution.
6) I would say no to this question. If there is indeed a God who wants us to be good to our fellow beings on this planet, then I don't think that being needs our worship, or desires it. The best thing to do to please such an entity, is to Love and teach that love to everyone you can.
7. All are right, and all are wrong. Taking the common teachings of each will give you the closest approximation of what people should be doing. At least that's my belief after 25 or so years of reading the different texts and scholarly books about religion.
I doubt I have actually answered any of your questions, but they certainly made me think, and for that I will thank you.
"Not trolling: are you careful to question Athiesm itself? (as a negative can't technically be proven...)"
Not being a "believer" or an "atheist" I question everything. That's my point, exactly. Sure there are plenty of religious people who question. In my experience, they are drowned out by the noise of the ones who don't. My experience is limited, but I've been looking at various religions for nearly 25 years in multiple countries, and that's the conclusion I have.
There are certainly people of every faith who believe because of their questions, but I've found fewer of them than those who believe because they're "supposed to". I think that trend is changing, and more people are questioning now than ever before, but in my experience the non-questioning beleivers are still in the majority.
"The God of the Bible doesn't want mindless drones, people do."
That's exactly why "believers" is in quotes in my original post. Far too many people consider themselves "christian" without understanding what that really means. Ask them to explain what the teachings of Christ were, and they (the ones who don't question) invariably start spouting off about morality and the fact that you have to "accept Christ" to "get into heaven". Your example of the scripture is correct but I would wager less than 50% of "believers" do anything like that. Of course I have no way of proving that figure, it's just my anecedotal evidence so you may have a different experience.
It happens with Islam too, but I've found more Muslims tend to really read the words of the Koran, and not just accept what they're being told as gospel...maybe because of the bad rap Islam has gotten over the last 30 years or so.
Being raised Southern Baptist, and studying various religions for the last 25 years or so, I have found that most people attend church not because they really want to be "christ-like" but because they are societally expected to attend church. It's social, not spiritual. There are definitely exceptions to that rule, but that is how I have come to experience religion in 3 countries and multiple different faiths.
As for your assertion that I think God doesn't allow questioning, I never said that. If there is an active God who is omnipotent and omnicient, that God most certainly gives us free will. How else would it be possible to explain different religions, and atheists? I can't argue with you at all, other than to say you misinterpreted my assertion about "believers" to be a statement about God, which it wasn't.
That's not what the comment you linked to said. It simply said to "maximize efficiency". Nowhere does it imply that the cell isn't as efficient as current flat plate technology is. Further, it stated that a hybrid cell using this technology (and some other one I don't know about) can get 60-70% efficiency, though the comment didn't cite anything to back that up.
As for the heat, why not just cyphon off some of the energy to power some cooling fans built into the frame of the panel? I don't know if it would work well enough, but I'm sure it would be at least somewhat effective.
All right, I'll take the bait. Define "decent rock climber" and what does campus boarding have to do with decent climbing? I'll grant you that building strength is good for climbers, but most of the climbers I know have never once used a campus board and they've been climbing (at various different ranges of difficulty) for many years. 1 fingered pullups are for the movies and essentially useless in 99.8% of outdoor climbing in the world.
I'm going to assume you mean indoor gym "climbers" and sport climbers, which typically need more grip strength than the folks I climb with... who are primarily mountaineers and trad climbers.
Potholes.
A pothole in the wrong place could seriously jack up your vision of future roadsigns. I'll take the standard signs we have now, thanks.
You've obviously never pissed on an electric fence. I assure you, urine can and does conduct electricity. And it's not fun!
Just because people have different ideas of right and wrong doesn't mean right and wrong don't exist. It simply means that what IS right and wrong is open to interpretation. They most definitely exist, though, and we are the only creatures (that I'm aware of) on the planet which make the distinction, thus, we "make it so".
Because Atheists question, and read. "Believers" simply believe, and by doing so think that all the questions are already answered.
I can't say who's right, but I can certainly say I raise my kids to question everything, even me, if they don't understand it.
Oh come now, there've been plenty of foriegn television (specifically British) and movies in the US. Of course, they're always remade with Americans, but we like foriegn media plenty. /sarcasm
My original post was to a parent post asking how to prevent the kids from playing violent video games. There was no assertion in my post that presumed a hatred of tech, or that children should be denied any luxuries. Forgive me if I don't agree that such a position is unreasonable.
I'm not sure where you get the idea I think "most other people are wrong" but again, I'll disagree with you there. My statement made no such assertion. It simply made the assertion that anything resembling a post that doesn't wholeheartedly support proliferation of tech is considered a bad thing here for some reason. At least by some, others seemed to find the post "insightful", which may or may not be accurate.
Obviously you're one of those people who sees black and white... either you love tech or you hate it. I'm not. I think there are varying degrees of usefulness, and I addressed one level of them. I subsequently addressed several others, but you might not have seen those posts.
Uh, where exactly did I say forbid getting it? I said "don't buy it". Those are not equal statements at all.
As for your example, maybe you just grew up enough to start focusing on what was important to you. Maybe you finally reached a stage where school wasn't boring to you. Maybe your metabolism changed just enough not to have distracting energy that your body was trying to burn. Or maybe games were really good for you.
I also don't see how being forbidden a game system as a child did you any harm at all. Did I miss something?
Not buying video games isn't the same as not providing for your childrens less obvious needs.
Why is it that people take every comment that shuns tech for other options as an insult and some sort of ridiculous extremist position? Kids get along just fine without video games in most of the world. They learn hand-eye coordination through sports or in some of the worse scenarios through working. They learn social skills by, oh noes socializing with other kids. They learn problem solving skills by solving the problems they encounter naturally.
Sure video games have a place. They're fun, they're entertaining, they even provide some important skills and lessons, when chosen carefully. I'm not disputing that. There's a big difference between saying kids don't need them and saying "kids only need food and shelter". Get a grip.
I didn't say there are no benefits to video games. I said children don't need them. There's a big difference. I played games as a kid, all kinds of games. It's not hard to find games that don't show violence or gore, and it's also not that hard to go out and play catch with you kid, thereby teaching the same hand-eye coordination. There are also far more social outlets than video games so I won't even bother with that one. For teaching problem solving skills, I'd rather my kid play an RPG or something but there are certainly good video games that combine both the hand-eye coordination and problem solving without the violence. I will reiterate my point though, kids don't need video games. There are plenty of other options.
So we shouldn't have to worry too much about you having kids to teach anyway, right?
Or don't buy anything at all. Kids don't need video games.
Most companies I've worked for won't allow personal equipment to be used like that. Sure, you can bring in your ergo chair and your personal radio (no streaming media here) but don't even think about bringing in your PC equipment to enhance your work. That's not allowed, specifically because of auditing.
Good luck trying to do that when you get into the workforce...maybe you'll have better luck than I have.