"There are no longer any technological limts preventing the shared world from constantly changing and evolving in response to player actions."
Not on a game the scale of WoW.
"If I don't like that orc encampment outside of town, I should be able to take a party and kill all the orcs and torch their campp and build a lemonade stand where it used to be. The game can create a new orc encampment somewhere no one is looking at right now. As time passes in the game, large areas my become "civilized" in this fashion, but that's just a matter of either making the world big, or occasionally setting up an orc invasion (or if your artists have had a few months to add a new creature type, an invasion of new content).
If you can randomely generate an instanced dungeon, you can randomely generate a shared dungeon which is discovered somewhere and lasts until someone figures out how to make it go away. Very little development work required."
You're confusing an instance with world content. "Very little" my ass.
To be honest, there are worst b-movie directors out there.
Uwe Boll is even worse than them because of his intense and blinding mediocrity. I love Ed Wood and MST3k-style badfilm, but Uwe fails at being an *entertaining* failure.
It's like grading school papers, instead of laughing at horrible (but original) writing, this is the lazy student who clumsily plagiarizes without understanding any of the source material.
The result is awkward, disjointed, and not even entertaining for its failings.
"2. He helped uncover a commercial company's SPYING program to catch you cheating"
Blizzard makes this program known through the licensing agreement. While that's not quite an obvious admission, this guy's not some valiant knight. He's an obnoxious twat that can't sell his cheat software anymore. Oh nos!
"at said game which can also spy on you in all sorts of law-breaking ways (let's see blizzard try to pull this shit in england where they have REAL privacy laws) +300 points"
It doesn't though, and Blizzard has Euro servers where I assume the same exact anticheat software is run.
The idea that "God" made us whole and without any predecessors is not a scientific assumption, and therefore does not deserve the respect as the hypothesized abiogenesis does. Regardless of whether the "creator" was involved or not, there was once no life, there is now, and we have greated the building blocks for life in a laboratory. As soon as we can create the baser lifeforms in the laboratory, Creationists will shift the goalposts yet once again and find something else that we can't currently explain to prattle on about.
Abiogenesis is our best understood and described explanation of our origins. Whether you wish to bring the supernatural into the process is your own business, but God doesn't factor into science and has no place in the "how"s. Feel free to assign him to the "why"s if you wish.
We understand *why* this sort of thing happens, and we're fine with the belief in all sorts of fairies, unicorns and dragons. It's just when one attempts to promote the teaching of dragonology in public schools that the problems occur:)
"Of course they won't visit - you just called them personal failures and said they never got a real education! It's akin to wearing a "Got Jesus?" T-shirt in Saudie Arabia."
I wasn't attempting to politely address the issue.
"You re-enforece my point when you say that Creationalists are poorly educated - if you have no respect for those whom you wish to converse with then you are merely being disrespectful at best or (most likely) making enemies."
They at some point received a critically flawed understanding of science, regardless of their level of formal education.
"And of course you have no respect for them - because they don't believe what you believe."
Ignorance and beliefs different from mine don't bother me, but well-financed ignorance with political muscle causes concern.
"There is an actual Truth - which I am a desciple and seeker of. I only find it humerous that my original post was moderated into the ground. How ironic, don't you think?"
I understand the semantics, but Creationists have hijacked the movement, and are both financing and providing the political muscle to push ID into schools. I'm not concerned with the Raelians:)
"Unfortunately, very few studies have been done on the success of psychology in resolving these problems, but the recent trend toward medication as a quick fix is one of the flaws of applying incomplete science to human beings - it's almost as if we are using each other as guinea pigs and the results are not good."
Understandable, however though society at times overmedicates the solution is not to throw out science as the solution for worldly physical and biological issues.
"Without wanting to cause a flame war, I would suggest that there are other ways that these problems can be dealt with"
If your ways have nothing to do with revising science itself to account for these particular abuses, they have no place in the material world and should remain as laughable as other pseudoscientific hogwash.
Part of how they behave is sociology, the rest and how they think is psychology, how they have lived is anthropology.
How they may best live may be guesstimated with information from all three, but it's not a great idea to assume in absolute terms that the "greater good" historically and statistically will fit a particular society and implementation.
You're claiming that the whole of evolutionary knowledge needs a radical change (not an elaboration or refinement), without explaining what needs to be changed. Your argument brings you much closer to Creationism than you may wish to admit.
"Atheists show that they don't know what a statistically significant sample is (see original article summary) OR that ID covers everything as a description from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution, and thus is pretty much a stupid description of anything in particular.
I'm willing to bet more than half the people who claim to believe in ID, really believe in Theistic Evolution, not Young Earth Creationism."
This is why scientists, theistic and atheistic refer to the ID movement as Creationism-
"Would this possibly in some way point to why we only use 10% of our cranial capacity? (These can be considered widely spread and disassociated thoughts)"
You're basing your worldview of "extra" brain capacity off of a new-age urban legend that has nothing to do with anatomy, medicine, or any science whatsoever.
Science seeks out worldly truth to its best understanding. Religion is about dictating otherworldly truth.
When a religion starts claiming scientific knowledge based on supernatural characteristics or pseudoscientists make supernatural claims, they both fall into a muddle of pseudoscientific trash.
"What bugs most people, however, is when scientists suddenly start spouting Nietzsche in the guise of Science."
Militant atheists are a tiny subset of the atheists at large, and are even tinier when compared to the glut of loudmouth creationists with actual political power.
The former hurts feelings, the latter damages minds.
Yeah, I have no idea why people modded up a blatant false dichotomy between the forces of Science and the forces of willful, blissful ignorance.
One can be religious and scientifically sound, and there are many theists working in evolutionary fields. Heck, there might be more there than atheists, but that doesn't matter, because God doesn't factor into good science.
Because one places their preconceptions of happiness on scientific ignorance does not make that a particularly valid or societally healthy choice. Dumbing down your beliefs because it's easier is understandable, but it's still absolutely correct to call that a stupid choice.
"Referring specifically to matters of the origin of life and the idea of intraspecies evolution, neither theory is even close to establishing scientific proof of their ideas"
Except that creationism hasn't established scientific proof of anything. Scientists who believe in God and work to understand our world further our understanding of *evolution*, as creationism is a god-of-the-gaps "fix" that prevents any knowledge from being accumulated.
Slashdot Mirror
"There are no longer any technological limts preventing the shared world from constantly changing and evolving in response to player actions."
Not on a game the scale of WoW.
"If I don't like that orc encampment outside of town, I should be able to take a party and kill all the orcs and torch their campp and build a lemonade stand where it used to be. The game can create a new orc encampment somewhere no one is looking at right now. As time passes in the game, large areas my become "civilized" in this fashion, but that's just a matter of either making the world big, or occasionally setting up an orc invasion (or if your artists have had a few months to add a new creature type, an invasion of new content).
If you can randomely generate an instanced dungeon, you can randomely generate a shared dungeon which is discovered somewhere and lasts until someone figures out how to make it go away. Very little development work required."
You're confusing an instance with world content. "Very little" my ass.
It has some of the same designers working on the film as well, even the sound designer/composer's on the production team!
I'm pretty psyched about it, even if it's poor acting-wise, the scenery and atmosphere seems "alive" enough from what I've seen so far.
To be honest, there are worst b-movie directors out there.
Uwe Boll is even worse than them because of his intense and blinding mediocrity. I love Ed Wood and MST3k-style badfilm, but Uwe fails at being an *entertaining* failure.
It's like grading school papers, instead of laughing at horrible (but original) writing, this is the lazy student who clumsily plagiarizes without understanding any of the source material.
The result is awkward, disjointed, and not even entertaining for its failings.
Yeah, the question isn't why he's still making movies, it's why people are still asking him to make movies after the financing loophole's been closed.
"2. He helped uncover a commercial company's SPYING program to catch you cheating"
Blizzard makes this program known through the licensing agreement. While that's not quite an obvious admission, this guy's not some valiant knight. He's an obnoxious twat that can't sell his cheat software anymore. Oh nos!
"at said game which can also spy on you in all sorts of law-breaking ways (let's see blizzard try to pull this shit in england where they have REAL privacy laws) +300 points"
It doesn't though, and Blizzard has Euro servers where I assume the same exact anticheat software is run.
The idea that "God" made us whole and without any predecessors is not a scientific assumption, and therefore does not deserve the respect as the hypothesized abiogenesis does. Regardless of whether the "creator" was involved or not, there was once no life, there is now, and we have greated the building blocks for life in a laboratory. As soon as we can create the baser lifeforms in the laboratory, Creationists will shift the goalposts yet once again and find something else that we can't currently explain to prattle on about.
Abiogenesis is our best understood and described explanation of our origins. Whether you wish to bring the supernatural into the process is your own business, but God doesn't factor into science and has no place in the "how"s. Feel free to assign him to the "why"s if you wish.
Nice goalpost-shifting, and you're still wrong.
"But we have NEVER seen, in the laboratory or otherwise, the creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
...bbbut he's a geek authority! Surely he as a cartoonist must know more about the subject than biologists!
Sorry, the parent post beat you to the punch.
This is for poor-but-fed areas, not war-torn mad max-ish wastelands.
You were modded as flamebait for calling scientists rabid retards, and rightly so.
We understand *why* this sort of thing happens, and we're fine with the belief in all sorts of fairies, unicorns and dragons. It's just when one attempts to promote the teaching of dragonology in public schools that the problems occur :)
"Of course they won't visit - you just called them personal failures and said they never got a real education! It's akin to wearing a "Got Jesus?" T-shirt in Saudie Arabia."
I wasn't attempting to politely address the issue.
"You re-enforece my point when you say that Creationalists are poorly educated - if you have no respect for those whom you wish to converse with then you are merely being disrespectful at best or (most likely) making enemies."
They at some point received a critically flawed understanding of science, regardless of their level of formal education.
"And of course you have no respect for them - because they don't believe what you believe."
Ignorance and beliefs different from mine don't bother me, but well-financed ignorance with political muscle causes concern.
"There is an actual Truth - which I am a desciple and seeker of. I only find it humerous that my original post was moderated into the ground. How ironic, don't you think?"
I don't see how.
I understand the semantics, but Creationists have hijacked the movement, and are both financing and providing the political muscle to push ID into schools. I'm not concerned with the Raelians :)
"Unfortunately, very few studies have been done on the success of psychology in resolving these problems, but the recent trend toward medication as a quick fix is one of the flaws of applying incomplete science to human beings - it's almost as if we are using each other as guinea pigs and the results are not good."
Understandable, however though society at times overmedicates the solution is not to throw out science as the solution for worldly physical and biological issues.
"Without wanting to cause a flame war, I would suggest that there are other ways that these problems can be dealt with"
If your ways have nothing to do with revising science itself to account for these particular abuses, they have no place in the material world and should remain as laughable as other pseudoscientific hogwash.
Part of how they behave is sociology, the rest and how they think is psychology, how they have lived is anthropology.
How they may best live may be guesstimated with information from all three, but it's not a great idea to assume in absolute terms that the "greater good" historically and statistically will fit a particular society and implementation.
You're claiming that the whole of evolutionary knowledge needs a radical change (not an elaboration or refinement), without explaining what needs to be changed. Your argument brings you much closer to Creationism than you may wish to admit.
"Atheists show that they don't know what a statistically significant sample is (see original article summary) OR that ID covers everything as a description from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution, and thus is pretty much a stupid description of anything in particular.
I'm willing to bet more than half the people who claim to believe in ID, really believe in Theistic Evolution, not Young Earth Creationism."
This is why scientists, theistic and atheistic refer to the ID movement as Creationism-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
"You're fooling yourself if you don't think that pure materialistic evolution doesn't have religious implications as well."
Everything in the material world has "religious implications", your point is meaningless.
"Would this possibly in some way point to why we only use 10% of our cranial capacity? (These can be considered widely spread and disassociated thoughts)"
You're basing your worldview of "extra" brain capacity off of a new-age urban legend that has nothing to do with anatomy, medicine, or any science whatsoever.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
Science seeks out worldly truth to its best understanding. Religion is about dictating otherworldly truth.
When a religion starts claiming scientific knowledge based on supernatural characteristics or pseudoscientists make supernatural claims, they both fall into a muddle of pseudoscientific trash.
"What bugs most people, however, is when scientists suddenly start spouting Nietzsche in the guise of Science."
Militant atheists are a tiny subset of the atheists at large, and are even tinier when compared to the glut of loudmouth creationists with actual political power.
The former hurts feelings, the latter damages minds.
Yeah, I have no idea why people modded up a blatant false dichotomy between the forces of Science and the forces of willful, blissful ignorance.
One can be religious and scientifically sound, and there are many theists working in evolutionary fields. Heck, there might be more there than atheists, but that doesn't matter, because God doesn't factor into good science.
Because one places their preconceptions of happiness on scientific ignorance does not make that a particularly valid or societally healthy choice. Dumbing down your beliefs because it's easier is understandable, but it's still absolutely correct to call that a stupid choice.
"Referring specifically to matters of the origin of life and the idea of intraspecies evolution, neither theory is even close to establishing scientific proof of their ideas"
:)
Except that creationism hasn't established scientific proof of anything. Scientists who believe in God and work to understand our world further our understanding of *evolution*, as creationism is a god-of-the-gaps "fix" that prevents any knowledge from being accumulated.
Either way, he wasn't saying that to begin with