There's always been a market for third party controllers. I owned three for my atari 2600 back in the day, and my original controllers were perfectly fine.
Brining save cards is great if you're playing with customized characters, but I don't know how many people actually do that.
It'd be great if they included all that sort of thing in with the game console, except 1. Lots of people don't need it, and 2. It'd make the console package cost more!
While I'll I don't complain about the lack of a second controller, the lack of the memory card purely motivated by profit. Sit down young man, because I'm about to blow your freakin' mind. Back in the day games came on cartridges. If the game required saving, there were two ways of to save the game. The game would either give you a code like "af392-djhq2-djhw2-diu21" that would represent all the important variables. The other method was to store the variables to battery backed ram. Now brace yourself, because here's the shocking part. The both types of games cost the same!
Today flash RAM is used, so let's examine those prices. A memory card is what 8 megs? 16 megs? Definatly no more than 32 meg. A player could save every 5 minutes, and still not run out of space. So how much is this much flash RAM? I don't know. I found a 128 meg pen drive for $6, and that's retail! That means the ram itself costs something less than a dollar. Less than a dollar! Right now a ps2 8 meg card costs $25! Insane!
Also, If your number 1 audience enjoys things that turn off women in gaming, f-them! No offense to the kind women gamers, but to some of us perverts out there, there's no such thing as too much cleavage, anywhere.
What to do? What to do? Sell to a 10 million uncouth horny boys, or slightly adjust and sell to twice as many customers. I know! I'll write off have my potential customers!
They (Saddam's terrorists) already had attacked, and were attacking still. Your claim makes no sense. The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.
Prior to the invasion, when did "Saddam's terrorists" attack the US? If you're going to say 9/11, your so dellusional, but it wouldn't be your fault. You would have just been taken by a orchestrated, and immediately discredited, lie.
How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this. Iraq refused to document such destruction of the weapons. They were still blocking inspections up until the US large-scale retaliation. If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections. [...] There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
The irony of course is that in the end he did in fact comply.
I attended a forum with UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He said that Saddam's regime was a bunch of liars, but even a liar can eventually tell the truth. He told of the story about the search for some sort of proscribed ballistic missles, which he said was typical of his dealings with Iraq.
The inspectors would first ask the Iraqis to prove they were in compliance. The Iraqis would say they were, and then drive the inspectors out into the desert to show them the destroyed missles. The inspectors would then take an inventory of all the identifyable parts and take notes of the part and serial numbers. These parts would then me matched to specific shipments.
This investigation would show that these parts came in lots of 100, but there were only enough parts at the site for 10 missles. The Iraqis would then be confronted with this. After some stalling, the Iraqis would eventually state that they "honestly thought" they destroyed all the missles, but were mistaken, but have since destroyed the remaining 90 missles. The inspectors would go out to the desert, examine the remains, and positively 85 missles. There would be a pile of parts that could make 5 missles, but they couldn't be positively identified with any particular missle. He said that if the Iraqis weren't lying so much, the inspectors would have listed these parts as 5 missles, and sign off. But the Iraqis were liars. They lied all the time. Given their track record, they could have been lying then. So the inspectors wouldn't sign off. And so begins one of the many tragedies in the lead up to the invasion. The intellegence services believed that the Iraqis had 5 missles, but they actually didn't, and there was no way the Iraqis to prove otherwise.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
First, he didn't "try to exterminate the Jews." He was thug, dictator, and a murder, but didn't do that. There's plenty of attrocities to attribute to him, without make some up.
In keeping with "tell any lie in order to prop up Saddam and make Bush look bad", [...]This is quite typical. None of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
Listen jackass. No one supports/supported Saddam Hussein. Many, and now a majority, believe it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong people, executed without a plan, and on slim-to-no rationale.
Try and wrap your mind around this: Someone can say, "That guy is a son-of-a-bitch, but he's not the son-of-a-bitch we're looking for. Remember what you said before? We want to get him! We are at war, but not with guy! You let the most wanted men in the world escape not just once but
For $899 it better deliver my morning toast. I'm all for linux, but isn't the whole idea open source, low cost and "do it yourself"?
But this is for classical music, and as we all know, everyone that listens to classical music has gobs and gobs of money just waiting to be spent! The large mark up is a sign of the high quality these demanding customers...um...demand!
What on earth are you talking about? Where did I undermine my argument? My point is that evolutionists CAN'T explain away the counterexamples. They're direct contradictions! If my evidence isn't compelling, how come you can't explain it away, genius?
1. Playing your game, you provided the much more compelling response. There was no need.
2. Evolution explains adaptations and and species divergence, which no, isn't completely understood, but it isn't magic. It says nothing about the psychology of individuals. It only explains a biological process. Evolution has no more motivation, than thermodynamics. Since you don't understand this, it shows that you do not have an understanding of what you're trying to discuss.
3. Evolution deals with populations as a whole, not individuals. Actions of an infantismal miniority do not dictate the course of a population in the general sense. Even if the hhuman race decided to throw themselves off cliffs tomorrow, that does not mean that evolution did not, and was not continuing to occur in all the other species.
4. I fail to see how free-will and technological advancement allowing the manipulation of the environment and ones one bodily function (e.g. contraceptives) has anything to do with whether or not species diverge and generall move from simpiler to more complex and diversified species. Again, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
That's because you weren't thinking; I explained it above. Did you somehow COMPLETELY FORGET about my reference to environmentalists, the VHME, and the people working on an anti-human virus? Were you unable to infer that "humanity annihilator" refers to someone who... wants to annihilate humanity?
No I didn't forget. It is completly immaterial.
And finally a personal comment. Grow some balls and sign your name.
Yeah. As an American it is emberassing. But what do you expect from a country that was founded by religous nuts that were pretty much thrown out of their own countries?
That's not true at all I'm afraid. Scientists debate evolution all the time. The most damning objections come from biologists themselves. Now you might say, so what, they all agree that "evolution" is valid. But no, until you spell out what evolution *means* and no one objects to a *complete* account of evolutionary history, there is still debate.
No legitamite scientist suggests that evolution is crock that should be abanonded and replaced. There's always tweaking of theories. Even General Relativity is undergoing tweaks. (Is the galactic constant actually zero? Maybe not.)
Oh, cool, so that means evolution makes falsifiable predictions, right? So what are they? No, let me answer. One prediction (from Doug Futuyma) is that if evolution were true, there would be no examples of any member of any species performing an act of self-sacrifice for another (with no benefit for its species). Oops, this was falsified though, by environmentalists strapping themselves to trees, the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, and the people working on a human specific virus. Now you might object that if you think hard enough, you can twist all logic and say those really do help humans - but by then, you'd sacrifice falsifiability because you wouldn't accept anything as counterevidence.
Nice try. You present one piece of and then say that refuting that "counter evidence" is sign of prejudice. It's not. If anything it would be "postjudice." There's aboslutely nothing wrong with that. In fact it is, and rightfully should be, encouraged to examine evidence and reach conclusions. Your example doesn't support your case case against evolution, and doesn't undermine the case for evolution. Your evidence is not very compelling, and the fact that you were able to undermine it in less than five minutes shows that you realize that. Deal with it.
Let me reword your next paragraph: evolution is a materialistic myth wrapped in pseudoscience. The conclusion that the universe was created by an random processes in a manner consistent with materialism.[...] Evolutionists don't do that. If an observation contradicts their conclusion, it's ignored.
Well since science can only deal with what is observable, it is by it's very nature, it is materialistic. There's no evidence to support the existence of non-physical (aka magical) processes, so until someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary, they will be ignored.
I've seen the evidence provided by Creation "Scientitsts." It doesn't hold up to scruitiny, let alone prolonged analysis. For example radioactive dating is frequently challenged. The "scientists" frequently try to argue that radiological decay isn't constant, yet thaat can't explain when or why radiological decay rates would fluctuate, nor explain why decay of certain radiological elements would be effected and not others. Best of all, they hope that everyone will ignore that their alternate "theory" just happens to coincide with their religious belief of a 6000 year old universe planet. So yeah, things like that are dismissed. It doesn't hold up. Not all evidence is equal. Creationist "evidence" is almost always demostrably wrong.
You seem to have a problem understanding that science and philosophy aren't the same thing. If you want to deal the the spiritual or the transceendent, you want to talk philosophy.
Don't believe me? Then why do evolutionists ignore environmentalists and humanity annihilato
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Unless of course it was show you're actually a troll. In that case. Damn. I fed you.
Sit down child, because you're going to get a lesson in politics. When someone, especially a high-level, powerful, and influential person says "advocates for contrasting ideas" in the context of a specific "contrasting idea", that's an endorsement with plausible-deniability. (e.g. "Oh crap! I'm getting flak. Well...um...I didn't actually SAY that.")
Things like "exposing them to different ideas" and "properly taught" are what's known as "code words." Words that appear to be about one thing, but actually about something else entirely. Here are two examples. One code word that shows up when discussing Supreme Court nominees, "Plessy-vs-Ferguson." Now why on Earth would the 1892 case that created the now discredited and defunct idea of "seperate but equal" have any bearing on cases today? Why would that be brought up? Why would "Dred Scott", the 1857 case that ruled that slaves were property have any bearing on anything today? I'll tell you. They're code words for "Roe v Wade", the case that legalized abortion nationwide. Everyone "in the know" knows what Dred Scott == Roe v Wade, but if you challenge the politico on about abortion, he'll say "Well that's a different case," and technically he's right, but the message has already been sent loud and clear.
Now back to the presidential endorsement of ID. Bush advocates "both sides" to be taught. Sounds like a reasonable position right? Only if you don't realize THERE ISN'T ANOTHER SIDE! No one. -- let me repeat that -- no one in the scientific community has any problems with the theory of evolution. That means there's abosultely no scientific controversy.
No supporters of ID say: "But evolution is just a theory, and that's only a guess. Scientitst don't know! ID is simply another guess. Who's say who is right and who is not?" That logic is based on a fundamental misunderstanding on just what a scientific theory really is.
A scientific theory is not merely "a guess" as IDers would have you believe. It's an archetecture explaining a whole series of observations that has been supported by many experiments by many different scientits. A "guess" isn't even a hypothesis. A guess is saying "heads" on a coin flip. A hypothesis is a testable (i.e. "falifyable") educated prediction about a single event. ID isn't falsifyable, and so it not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Read this for a good description of law versus theory versus hypothesis versus guess.
ID is a biblical creation myth wrapped in pseudoscience. The conclusion that the universe was created by an intellegent entity in a manner consistent with judeo-christian mythology is the predetermined. Then "facts" are manipulated to give the illusion of support for that conclusion. That's not science. Science gathers observations then arrives at conclusions that can explain the observations. If an observation contradicts the conclusions, the conclusions are modified and or replaced. Creationists, which IDers are all the way, don't do that. If an observation contradicts their conclusion, it's ignored.
Teaching ID along with evolution is a completly intellectually bankrupt idea. It equates a well supported scientific archetecture with demonstrably untrue mumbo-jumbo. It's the equivalent of saying that the Earth is round needs to be "balanced" by the Earth is flat. Or that a geocentric universe should be taught in order to "balance" the heliocentric solar system.
Just because some dude on K5 thinks something is true, doesn't mean it is. I have yet to see the whole "Apology for Hitler" thing in the book. Really, if someone can explain this to me, I would really like to know. I would also really like to see this essay that is spoken of in the K5 article. Without any examples or any kind of proof, I would think that most people would write it off as a Troll post, but it seems comparing people to Hitler is the cool thing to do.
As I've said in a previous post, I don't find the "Ender as Hitler" argument very compelling. I do find the "Ender as Christ, but where Jesus kills people willie-nilly" is a good comparison. It's clear that Ender is supposed to be a misunderstood messiah. The morality of "there are good people, and no matter what they do it is good," is a crock. I was under the impression that that kind of thinking went away with the fall of divine-right, the inquisition, and puritanism.
Do your own research, and you will find he is an asshat, and you don't even have to compare him to Hitler!
First. Neither I, nor the author of the linked article, compared him to Hitler. The author wrote of an essay that called him a "Hitler apologist," and said he basically acted really weird. Those are two very different things, and most people of moderate intelligence can recognize the difference. Second. I have done my own research. I've read his essays. Those make it clear. He's a whack job.
For years now, I thought the Republicans were trying to repeal the 20th century with their opposition to labor laws, environmental laws, public education, etc. Apparently I was wrong. They're trying to repeal the 16th century.
I'd don't think "Ender's Game" was "Springtime for Hitler" either. But I do think OSC's "Some people are simply good, and no matter what they do, it's good," is bogus. No one says, "Today, I'm going to do evil." Many of the most heinous crimes were performed, either "for the greater good," or more directly, "as god's will." If I kill somebody, even if I didn't intend to, it's still a crime. Ender intentionally kills several people, ultimately cullminating in the Xenocide. There's a word for when someone sets out to kill someone else and succeeds. The word is "murder."
Ender is far from Chirst like. He's crazy. Ender is one troubled boy. If he was a real kid, he would have shot up his school long ago.
Hitler has become a cliche, and almost always inappropriate, and equally forced cliche about real tyrants. There was only one Hitler, and that was Hitler. If you want to criticise someone, you don't need to resort to calling them names.
But, the stuff I've heard and read is that it's still hollow (like about, ahem, size).
A friend of mine went to Japan on a buisness trip a few years ago. Him, and the other Americans he was with went out to a bar one night. There was this one Japanese girl that kept hitting on this married black guy that was with him. Eventually, the black guy got fed up with it and said, "White guy biiig. Black guy small." It worked, because she got pissed off and left. My friend (who is white) turned and said, "Finally. The truth comes out.":)
Why wasn't GTA:SA nominated? It has lots of fun stuff on the radio--suprisingly for a video game, it actually got quite a few good song to put on the rock stations.
Yeah. And they were in 1988. Hell, "Welcome to the Jungle" was on the Dead Pool soundtrack.
But don't let silly things like, oh, facts get in the way of all your flag-waving.
Oh, but don't let silly things like, oh, understanding the facts you presented from getting in the way of all your sophomoric insights.
The best thing that NASA could have done at the time to replace their shuttle fleet would have been to fund or buy Buran from the Russians when they ran out of money. the Russians built an amazing robot spaceplane in the 80's, something that NASA still has not achieved.
There was no neeed for a "robot spaceplane", and the the Buran was never intended to be used as a "robot spaceplane". Look, the shuttle could be remotely piloted, like any other aircraft. It's not because there's no point in remotely piloting a manned aircraft. The idea of remotely piloted manned aircraft was never popular in the US, even though the initial Soviet launch vehicles, specifically the Vostok. You can read all about it in Tom Wolfe's book The Right Stuff.
A simple example:
If the shuttle's re-entry angle is wrong, EVEN WITH NO DAMAGE, airframe stress becomes critical, it breaks up and everybody dies.
If a Russian space capsule's re-entry angle is wrong, they experience slightly higher G-forces and the pickup helicopter takes a couple of minutes longer to reach them after parachuting to earth.
Let me point out the obvious. A capsule isn't an airplane; The shape of the object helps to determine what stresses it can take. The Russian capsules are compact gumdrops. The shuttle is long and wide. Of course it has a different stress pattern. I'm not even an aerospace engineer, and I know that.
NASA's shuttle is a bastard design created from political compromise: the military wanted it, the scientists wanted it, the politicians wanted it. As a result it works for almost nobody
No argument here.
and is a 30-year old deathtrap. I'm suprised the loss rate has been so low - I have no idea what drugs NASA is ingesting, I'll be very suprised if this one isn't lost as well.
Your sleep at the local Holiday Inn not withstanding, you don't know what you're talking about. You have some individual facts, but you don't have any understanding of them. Come back when you're actually a rocket scientist, and not simply just playing one.
The shuttle should be killed and replaced ASAP, preferably taking some serious clues from bulletproof no-compromise brute simplicity Russian space engineering -
I'm dissing the Russian space program, they managed to keep Mir flying well beyond its intended lifespan, but they have no funding, not equipment, nothing. They're plenty smart, but don't have the ability to actually implement anything they design.
which is currently the best in the history of the world (until the Chinese or commercial sector catches up and passes them).
Yeah. That's why "Russian" is synonymous with well built dependable products, and not rusting, broken, semi-dependable, and kind of sad given their former greatness.
The world has seen that fabulous Russian engineering during the Cold War. Like the Chinese, they copied. The TU-144? The Concorde. The Buran? The space shuttle. The A-Bomb? Given to them by the Rosenbergs. Then there's the whole fiasco with the soviet engineers touring the American factory with special soles on their shoes to pick up metal filings for future analysis.
Coming back to the space program, my favorite quote from the movie version of The Right Stuff comes from an American general learning about Sputnik. He asks the scientist, "Are you telling me their Germans are smarter than our Germans?" Who got space first? The Germans.
The guy I suggested was the founder of the RCMP, arguably the symbol of Canada. Everyone loves the mounties. Didn't Germany have Bach on some of their mark? Some countries don't even have known people on the money, but rather just symbols of the nation. The mounty on the nickel, and the caribou on the quarter are interesting choices.
Here's a thought - put a fucking MAP on the front of the paper money so people can learn a bit of geography.
And make you're coins different sizes from the American counterparts. It's bad enough you use "dollars", but do you have to defraud our vending machines by purchasing 50 cent cans of soda for 40 cents? It's all a plot to undermine our economy, I just know it.
Silly Canadian. You think you're a country even though your laws have to approved by a foreign sovereign. (The Queen of England, by way of her Governor General.) Now, either become truly independent and replace that silly foreign welfare queen on your money with John A. Macdonald or some other Canadian of historical significance. You're half way there. You've already got your own flag, which is more I can say about Australia and New Zealand. Soon you'll be free of your colonial oppressors like India and your neighbors to the south.
Upton noted that the extension means daylight-saving time will continue through Halloween, adding to safety. "Kids across the nation will soon rejoice," said Upton, because they'll have another hour of daylight trick-or-treating.
Uhh.... daylight trick-or-treating? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. I never trick-or-treated during daylight hours. It was always dark, my parents went with me to make sure I was safe. This is sad. Upton might as well said, "We have now just ruined Halloween nationwide."
Geez, some people will go to any length to defend the indefensible.
There's nothing wrong with asking for the raw data, and who funded the study. Many times the funding of papers are included in the acknowledgements section. The abuse of power comes from asking for the personal financial records of the scientists. Unless a corruption (i.e. bribery) or some crime is suspected, which none is, then the move is nothing more than harasment.
It comes down to an interesting question. If personal and professional finances are off-limits, how else can politicians determine whether a complex statistical report has been "paid for" by an interested party?
Because the papers come from "centers" in universities and think tanks. These centers are well known, and make no bones about who support them. The papers, like those published in Nature and JAMA, include finacial disclosures. When studies are funded by the government, they are clearly marked as such. (e.g. "This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. IIS-######## and IIS-#######. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.")
So before attempting to make some pseudo-insightful comment, you should actuallly learn about how science is actually funded.
Someone's from Indiana, the most backassed timezone system in the country. Either that or Arizona.
Heck, I'm not a believer in time zones, either. Let's adopt one time standard and adjust schedules accordingly.
China does that. Everyone is on Beijing time.
Timezones are a natural phenomena. If you use the traditional definition of noon as when the sun is at the highest point in the sky, then noon does occur at differnent points in the planets rotation every place on the planet. Every 15 degrees, is off by approximately 60 minutes.
I don't need to be tricked into waking up in the morning.
Well you will be when you have to wake up at 3am, since it's no longer "morning". You don't have be "tricked" now, because your circadian rhythm says "wake up shortly after sunrise."
Slashdot Mirror
There's always been a market for third party controllers. I owned three for my atari 2600 back in the day, and my original controllers were perfectly fine.
Brining save cards is great if you're playing with customized characters, but I don't know how many people actually do that.
It'd be great if they included all that sort of thing in with the game console, except 1. Lots of people don't need it, and 2. It'd make the console package cost more!
While I'll I don't complain about the lack of a second controller, the lack of the memory card purely motivated by profit. Sit down young man, because I'm about to blow your freakin' mind. Back in the day games came on cartridges. If the game required saving, there were two ways of to save the game. The game would either give you a code like "af392-djhq2-djhw2-diu21" that would represent all the important variables. The other method was to store the variables to battery backed ram. Now brace yourself, because here's the shocking part. The both types of games cost the same!
Today flash RAM is used, so let's examine those prices. A memory card is what 8 megs? 16 megs? Definatly no more than 32 meg. A player could save every 5 minutes, and still not run out of space. So how much is this much flash RAM? I don't know. I found a 128 meg pen drive for $6, and that's retail! That means the ram itself costs something less than a dollar. Less than a dollar! Right now a ps2 8 meg card costs $25! Insane!
Also, If your number 1 audience enjoys things that turn off women in gaming, f-them! No offense to the kind women gamers, but to some of us perverts out there, there's no such thing as too much cleavage, anywhere.
What to do? What to do? Sell to a 10 million uncouth horny boys, or slightly adjust and sell to twice as many customers. I know! I'll write off have my potential customers!
They (Saddam's terrorists) already had attacked, and were attacking still. Your claim makes no sense. The "attacks" you mention were retaliation for attacks against Americans which had already occured.
Prior to the invasion, when did "Saddam's terrorists" attack the US? If you're going to say 9/11, your so dellusional, but it wouldn't be your fault. You would have just been taken by a orchestrated, and immediately discredited, lie.
How many lies must be told to defend Saddam? There is nothing true about this. Iraq refused to document such destruction of the weapons. They were still blocking inspections up until the US large-scale retaliation. If they were eager to end the embargo, they would have welcomed inspections. [...] There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
The irony of course is that in the end he did in fact comply.
I attended a forum with UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He said that Saddam's regime was a bunch of liars, but even a liar can eventually tell the truth. He told of the story about the search for some sort of proscribed ballistic missles, which he said was typical of his dealings with Iraq.
The inspectors would first ask the Iraqis to prove they were in compliance. The Iraqis would say they were, and then drive the inspectors out into the desert to show them the destroyed missles. The inspectors would then take an inventory of all the identifyable parts and take notes of the part and serial numbers. These parts would then me matched to specific shipments.
This investigation would show that these parts came in lots of 100, but there were only enough parts at the site for 10 missles. The Iraqis would then be confronted with this. After some stalling, the Iraqis would eventually state that they "honestly thought" they destroyed all the missles, but were mistaken, but have since destroyed the remaining 90 missles. The inspectors would go out to the desert, examine the remains, and positively 85 missles. There would be a pile of parts that could make 5 missles, but they couldn't be positively identified with any particular missle. He said that if the Iraqis weren't lying so much, the inspectors would have listed these parts as 5 missles, and sign off. But the Iraqis were liars. They lied all the time. Given their track record, they could have been lying then. So the inspectors wouldn't sign off. And so begins one of the many tragedies in the lead up to the invasion. The intellegence services believed that the Iraqis had 5 missles, but they actually didn't, and there was no way the Iraqis to prove otherwise.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
First, he didn't "try to exterminate the Jews." He was thug, dictator, and a murder, but didn't do that. There's plenty of attrocities to attribute to him, without make some up.
In keeping with "tell any lie in order to prop up Saddam and make Bush look bad", [...]This is quite typical. None of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
Listen jackass. No one supports/supported Saddam Hussein. Many, and now a majority, believe it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong people, executed without a plan, and on slim-to-no rationale.
Try and wrap your mind around this: Someone can say, "That guy is a son-of-a-bitch, but he's not the son-of-a-bitch we're looking for. Remember what you said before? We want to get him! We are at war, but not with guy! You let the most wanted men in the world escape not just once but
And while on the topic... who thought up this crazy 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day.
I believe that was the Babylonians.
For $899 it better deliver my morning toast. I'm all for linux, but isn't the whole idea open source, low cost and "do it yourself"?
But this is for classical music, and as we all know, everyone that listens to classical music has gobs and gobs of money just waiting to be spent! The large mark up is a sign of the high quality these demanding customers...um...demand!
What on earth are you talking about? Where did I undermine my argument? My point is that evolutionists CAN'T explain away the counterexamples. They're direct contradictions! If my evidence isn't compelling, how come you can't explain it away, genius?
... wants to annihilate humanity?
1. Playing your game, you provided the much more compelling response. There was no need.
2. Evolution explains adaptations and and species divergence, which no, isn't completely understood, but it isn't magic. It says nothing about the psychology of individuals. It only explains a biological process. Evolution has no more motivation, than thermodynamics. Since you don't understand this, it shows that you do not have an understanding of what you're trying to discuss.
3. Evolution deals with populations as a whole, not individuals. Actions of an infantismal miniority do not dictate the course of a population in the general sense. Even if the hhuman race decided to throw themselves off cliffs tomorrow, that does not mean that evolution did not, and was not continuing to occur in all the other species.
4. I fail to see how free-will and technological advancement allowing the manipulation of the environment and ones one bodily function (e.g. contraceptives) has anything to do with whether or not species diverge and generall move from simpiler to more complex and diversified species. Again, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
That's because you weren't thinking; I explained it above. Did you somehow COMPLETELY FORGET about my reference to environmentalists, the VHME, and the people working on an anti-human virus? Were you unable to infer that "humanity annihilator" refers to someone who
No I didn't forget. It is completly immaterial.
And finally a personal comment. Grow some balls and sign your name.
Yeah. As an American it is emberassing. But what do you expect from a country that was founded by religous nuts that were pretty much thrown out of their own countries?
That's not true at all I'm afraid. Scientists debate evolution all the time. The most damning objections come from biologists themselves. Now you might say, so what, they all agree that "evolution" is valid. But no, until you spell out what evolution *means* and no one objects to a *complete* account of evolutionary history, there is still debate.
No legitamite scientist suggests that evolution is crock that should be abanonded and replaced. There's always tweaking of theories. Even General Relativity is undergoing tweaks. (Is the galactic constant actually zero? Maybe not.)
Oh, cool, so that means evolution makes falsifiable predictions, right? So what are they? No, let me answer. One prediction (from Doug Futuyma) is that if evolution were true, there would be no examples of any member of any species performing an act of self-sacrifice for another (with no benefit for its species). Oops, this was falsified though, by environmentalists strapping themselves to trees, the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, and the people working on a human specific virus. Now you might object that if you think hard enough, you can twist all logic and say those really do help humans - but by then, you'd sacrifice falsifiability because you wouldn't accept anything as counterevidence.
Nice try. You present one piece of and then say that refuting that "counter evidence" is sign of prejudice. It's not. If anything it would be "postjudice." There's aboslutely nothing wrong with that. In fact it is, and rightfully should be, encouraged to examine evidence and reach conclusions. Your example doesn't support your case case against evolution, and doesn't undermine the case for evolution. Your evidence is not very compelling, and the fact that you were able to undermine it in less than five minutes shows that you realize that. Deal with it.
Let me reword your next paragraph: evolution is a materialistic myth wrapped in pseudoscience. The conclusion that the universe was created by an random processes in a manner consistent with materialism.[...] Evolutionists don't do that. If an observation contradicts their conclusion, it's ignored.
Well since science can only deal with what is observable, it is by it's very nature, it is materialistic. There's no evidence to support the existence of non-physical (aka magical) processes, so until someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary, they will be ignored.
I've seen the evidence provided by Creation "Scientitsts." It doesn't hold up to scruitiny, let alone prolonged analysis. For example radioactive dating is frequently challenged. The "scientists" frequently try to argue that radiological decay isn't constant, yet thaat can't explain when or why radiological decay rates would fluctuate, nor explain why decay of certain radiological elements would be effected and not others. Best of all, they hope that everyone will ignore that their alternate "theory" just happens to coincide with their religious belief of a 6000 year old universe planet. So yeah, things like that are dismissed. It doesn't hold up. Not all evidence is equal. Creationist "evidence" is almost always demostrably wrong.
You seem to have a problem understanding that science and philosophy aren't the same thing. If you want to deal the the spiritual or the transceendent, you want to talk philosophy.
Don't believe me? Then why do evolutionists ignore environmentalists and humanity annihilato
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Unless of course it was show you're actually a troll. In that case. Damn. I fed you.
Sit down child, because you're going to get a lesson in politics. When someone, especially a high-level, powerful, and influential person says "advocates for contrasting ideas" in the context of a specific "contrasting idea", that's an endorsement with plausible-deniability. (e.g. "Oh crap! I'm getting flak. Well...um...I didn't actually SAY that.")
Things like "exposing them to different ideas" and "properly taught" are what's known as "code words." Words that appear to be about one thing, but actually about something else entirely. Here are two examples. One code word that shows up when discussing Supreme Court nominees, "Plessy-vs-Ferguson." Now why on Earth would the 1892 case that created the now discredited and defunct idea of "seperate but equal" have any bearing on cases today? Why would that be brought up? Why would "Dred Scott", the 1857 case that ruled that slaves were property have any bearing on anything today? I'll tell you.
They're code words for "Roe v Wade", the case that legalized abortion nationwide. Everyone "in the know" knows what Dred Scott == Roe v Wade, but if you challenge the politico on about abortion, he'll say "Well that's a different case," and technically he's right, but the message has already been sent loud and clear.
Now back to the presidential endorsement of ID. Bush advocates "both sides" to be taught. Sounds like a reasonable position right? Only if you don't realize THERE ISN'T ANOTHER SIDE! No one. -- let me repeat that -- no one in the scientific community has any problems with the theory of evolution. That means there's abosultely no scientific controversy.
No supporters of ID say: "But evolution is just a theory, and that's only a guess. Scientitst don't know! ID is simply another guess. Who's say who is right and who is not?" That logic is based on a fundamental misunderstanding on just what a scientific theory really is.
A scientific theory is not merely "a guess" as IDers would have you believe. It's an archetecture explaining a whole series of observations that has been supported by many experiments by many different scientits. A "guess" isn't even a hypothesis. A guess is saying "heads" on a coin flip. A hypothesis is a testable (i.e. "falifyable") educated prediction about a single event. ID isn't falsifyable, and so it not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Read this for a good description of law versus theory versus hypothesis versus guess.
ID is a biblical creation myth wrapped in pseudoscience. The conclusion that the universe was created by an intellegent entity in a manner consistent with judeo-christian mythology is the predetermined. Then "facts" are manipulated to give the illusion of support for that conclusion. That's not science. Science gathers observations then arrives at conclusions that can explain the observations. If an observation contradicts the conclusions, the conclusions are modified and or replaced. Creationists, which IDers are all the way, don't do that. If an observation contradicts their conclusion, it's ignored.
Teaching ID along with evolution is a completly intellectually bankrupt idea. It equates a well supported scientific archetecture with demonstrably untrue mumbo-jumbo. It's the equivalent of saying that the Earth is round needs to be "balanced" by the Earth is flat. Or that a geocentric universe should be taught in order to "balance" the heliocentric solar system.
Oh well, it's all over now.
Just because some dude on K5 thinks something is true, doesn't mean it is. I have yet to see the whole "Apology for Hitler" thing in the book. Really, if someone can explain this to me, I would really like to know. I would also really like to see this essay that is spoken of in the K5 article. Without any examples or any kind of proof, I would think that most people would write it off as a Troll post, but it seems comparing people to Hitler is the cool thing to do.
As I've said in a previous post, I don't find the "Ender as Hitler" argument very compelling. I do find the "Ender as Christ, but where Jesus kills people willie-nilly" is a good comparison. It's clear that Ender is supposed to be a misunderstood messiah. The morality of "there are good people, and no matter what they do it is good," is a crock. I was under the impression that that kind of thinking went away with the fall of divine-right, the inquisition, and puritanism.
Do your own research, and you will find he is an asshat, and you don't even have to compare him to Hitler!
First. Neither I, nor the author of the linked article, compared him to Hitler. The author wrote of an essay that called him a "Hitler apologist," and said he basically acted really weird. Those are two very different things, and most people of moderate intelligence can recognize the difference. Second. I have done my own research. I've read his essays. Those make it clear. He's a whack job.
For years now, I thought the Republicans were trying to repeal the 20th century with their opposition to labor laws, environmental laws, public education, etc. Apparently I was wrong. They're trying to repeal the 16th century.
I'd don't think "Ender's Game" was "Springtime for Hitler" either. But I do think OSC's "Some people are simply good, and no matter what they do, it's good," is bogus. No one says, "Today, I'm going to do evil." Many of the most heinous crimes were performed, either "for the greater good," or more directly, "as god's will." If I kill somebody, even if I didn't intend to, it's still a crime. Ender intentionally kills several people, ultimately cullminating in the Xenocide. There's a word for when someone sets out to kill someone else and succeeds. The word is "murder."
Ender is far from Chirst like. He's crazy. Ender is one troubled boy. If he was a real kid, he would have shot up his school long ago.
Hitler has become a cliche, and almost always inappropriate, and equally forced cliche about real tyrants. There was only one Hitler, and that was Hitler. If you want to criticise someone, you don't need to resort to calling them names.
The past several "insights" of OSC has revealed him to be bit of a crackpot. Why would anyone give a damn about anything he has to say?
But, the stuff I've heard and read is that it's still hollow (like about, ahem, size).
:)
A friend of mine went to Japan on a buisness trip a few years ago. Him, and the other Americans he was with went out to a bar one night. There was this one Japanese girl that kept hitting on this married black guy that was with him. Eventually, the black guy got fed up with it and said, "White guy biiig. Black guy small." It worked, because she got pissed off and left. My friend (who is white) turned and said, "Finally. The truth comes out."
Actually, gynoid has been used, but it has never caught on.
That's funny. ALICE told me she thought I was sexy, and that she wanted to talk dirty, but sadly she didn't.
Why wasn't GTA:SA nominated? It has lots of fun stuff on the radio--suprisingly for a video game, it actually got quite a few good song to put on the rock stations.
Yeah. And they were in 1988. Hell, "Welcome to the Jungle" was on the Dead Pool soundtrack.
But don't let silly things like, oh, facts get in the way of all your flag-waving.
Oh, but don't let silly things like, oh, understanding the facts you presented from getting in the way of all your sophomoric insights.
The best thing that NASA could have done at the time to replace their shuttle fleet would have been to fund or buy Buran from the Russians when they ran out of money. the Russians built an amazing robot spaceplane in the 80's, something that NASA still has not achieved.
There was no neeed for a "robot spaceplane", and the the Buran was never intended to be used as a "robot spaceplane". Look, the shuttle could be remotely piloted, like any other aircraft. It's not because there's no point in remotely piloting a manned aircraft. The idea of remotely piloted manned aircraft was never popular in the US, even though the initial Soviet launch vehicles, specifically the Vostok. You can read all about it in Tom Wolfe's book The Right Stuff.
A simple example:
If the shuttle's re-entry angle is wrong, EVEN WITH NO DAMAGE, airframe stress becomes critical, it breaks up and everybody dies.
If a Russian space capsule's re-entry angle is wrong, they experience slightly higher G-forces and the pickup helicopter takes a couple of minutes longer to reach them after parachuting to earth.
Let me point out the obvious. A capsule isn't an airplane; The shape of the object helps to determine what stresses it can take. The Russian capsules are compact gumdrops. The shuttle is long and wide. Of course it has a different stress pattern. I'm not even an aerospace engineer, and I know that.
NASA's shuttle is a bastard design created from political compromise: the military wanted it, the scientists wanted it, the politicians wanted it. As a result it works for almost nobody
No argument here.
and is a 30-year old deathtrap. I'm suprised the loss rate has been so low - I have no idea what drugs NASA is ingesting, I'll be very suprised if this one isn't lost as well.
Your sleep at the local Holiday Inn not withstanding, you don't know what you're talking about. You have some individual facts, but you don't have any understanding of them. Come back when you're actually a rocket scientist, and not simply just playing one.
The shuttle should be killed and replaced ASAP, preferably taking some serious clues from bulletproof no-compromise brute simplicity Russian space engineering -
I'm dissing the Russian space program, they managed to keep Mir flying well beyond its intended lifespan, but they have no funding, not equipment, nothing. They're plenty smart, but don't have the ability to actually implement anything they design.
which is currently the best in the history of the world (until the Chinese or commercial sector catches up and passes them).
Yeah. That's why "Russian" is synonymous with well built dependable products, and not rusting, broken, semi-dependable, and kind of sad given their former greatness.
The world has seen that fabulous Russian engineering during the Cold War. Like the Chinese, they copied. The TU-144? The Concorde. The Buran? The space shuttle. The A-Bomb? Given to them by the Rosenbergs. Then there's the whole fiasco with the soviet engineers touring the American factory with special soles on their shoes to pick up metal filings for future analysis.
Coming back to the space program, my favorite quote from the movie version of The Right Stuff comes from an American general learning about Sputnik. He asks the scientist, "Are you telling me their Germans are smarter than our Germans?" Who got space first? The Germans.
I grew up during the 80s, and was told by the
The guy I suggested was the founder of the RCMP, arguably the symbol of Canada. Everyone loves the mounties. Didn't Germany have Bach on some of their mark? Some countries don't even have known people on the money, but rather just symbols of the nation. The mounty on the nickel, and the caribou on the quarter are interesting choices.
Here's a thought - put a fucking MAP on the front of the paper money so people can learn a bit of geography.
And make you're coins different sizes from the American counterparts. It's bad enough you use "dollars", but do you have to defraud our vending machines by purchasing 50 cent cans of soda for 40 cents? It's all a plot to undermine our economy, I just know it.
Silly Canadian. You think you're a country even though your laws have to approved by a foreign sovereign. (The Queen of England, by way of her Governor General.) Now, either become truly independent and replace that silly foreign welfare queen on your money with John A. Macdonald or some other Canadian of historical significance. You're half way there. You've already got your own flag, which is more I can say about Australia and New Zealand. Soon you'll be free of your colonial oppressors like India and your neighbors to the south.
Uhh.... daylight trick-or-treating? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. I never trick-or-treated during daylight hours. It was always dark, my parents went with me to make sure I was safe. This is sad. Upton might as well said, "We have now just ruined Halloween nationwide."
Geez, some people will go to any length to defend the indefensible.
There's nothing wrong with asking for the raw data, and who funded the study. Many times the funding of papers are included in the acknowledgements section. The abuse of power comes from asking for the personal financial records of the scientists. Unless a corruption (i.e. bribery) or some crime is suspected, which none is, then the move is nothing more than harasment.
It comes down to an interesting question. If personal and professional finances are off-limits, how else can politicians determine whether a complex statistical report has been "paid for" by an interested party?
Because the papers come from "centers" in universities and think tanks. These centers are well known, and make no bones about who support them. The papers, like those published in Nature and JAMA, include finacial disclosures. When studies are funded by the government, they are clearly marked as such. (e.g. "This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. IIS-######## and IIS-#######. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.")
So before attempting to make some pseudo-insightful comment, you should actuallly learn about how science is actually funded.
I used to live in a non-DST state
Someone's from Indiana, the most backassed timezone system in the country. Either that or Arizona.
Heck, I'm not a believer in time zones, either. Let's adopt one time standard and adjust schedules accordingly.
China does that. Everyone is on Beijing time.
Timezones are a natural phenomena. If you use the traditional definition of noon as when the sun is at the highest point in the sky, then noon does occur at differnent points in the planets rotation every place on the planet. Every 15 degrees, is off by approximately 60 minutes.
I'm no fan of the current timezone and daylight savings time systems. The TZs should be redrawn according to the planet. Daylight savings, while I personally like the daylight, isn't the how the planet's rotation works. Yet, I know we're stuck with this dumb system.
I don't need to be tricked into waking up in the morning.
Well you will be when you have to wake up at 3am, since it's no longer "morning". You don't have be "tricked" now, because your circadian rhythm says "wake up shortly after sunrise."
Perhaps you should read the fucking article.