Anyone who believes that the world was created 6000 years ago can't possibly believe in science. Unfortunately for them there is hard scientific proof that this is not the case. On the other hand there are many Christians who believe(as it says in the bible) that god's time is not our time. In other words, god's time progresses more slowly than our own. Whether thats a supernatural thing or something to do with relativity is a question unanswered. I'm personally of the opinion that the supernatural is just something we haven't yet been able to explain with science.
Just because we can't explain for certain how the universe started, doesn't mean it was "supernatural". Some day we very well may find the "missing link", explain the origins of the universe etc. That won't mean that god doesn't exist. The only time we'll be able to answer that question for certain is when we die. I can wait to have that question answered. In the meantime we believe what we feel comfortable believing. If the thought of a creator makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside then so be it. Personally I fall on the side of agnosticism. I don't care to follow any particular faith because I think that there is no way they can all be right, so how can any of them be right?
The dangers many Christians face is in taking up the position that evolution couldn't have happened because if it did happen then god doesn't exist. Its a bad position because if evolution were to be proved scientifically they'd have dug themselves a hole. On the other hand if they believe that evolution and god could go hand in hand they are on firmer ground. Instead of trying to fight each other, scientists and people of faith should be examining the evidence before them. We shouldn't forget though, that many scientists are people of faith too.
Assuming we ever have the computing power for photorealism we will finally get to a point where the next eye candy isn't what drives the game. Designers will have to rely on really good stories and interactivity with the environment to make quality games. Half Life 2 went in this direction. I hope more games go this way. The story was good and the interactivity with the world was unparalleled.
Sometimes artistic license is a bad thing, especially in movies. I expect the batmobile to look a certain way and if it doesn't then the whole movie won't feel like "Batman". If it doesn't, then what was the point of using the batman license? Just make another movie with a similar character.
I remember seeing the trailor a while ago and seeing that vehicle. I prayed to the dark lords of the sith that it wasn't the new batmobile. So assuming you are right they have answered my prayers. The new batmobile better not suck though.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
There is no agreement between me and the advertisers who are trying to sell me their crap. When a commercial comes on the television I am under no obligation to watch it. When a banner ad appears at the top of a page(such as the one on the top of this page) I am under no obligation to read it. When I walk past a bench I am not required to read the ads posted on the side of it. So I see no reason why there would be any social contract between myself and a website to read their popup. If anything the social contract should be that the website should not try to control my browser in a manner that I do not want it to be used. And I definitely hate popups.
I hope the American lobby tries to butt in to get Canada to make more severe copyright laws because speaking as a Canadian, nothing makes us more stubborn than when America tries to make us do something we haven't made up our minds on. End result, no additional copyright laws.
The problem with the vast majority of computer repair people is the complete lack of training. I have been using computers since I was 12 for the last 15 years. I admit I don't know everything but I have made it pretty much the focus of my academic efforts so I know a lot. I took computer science in university and in college so I not only know how to fix a computer, I know what, why, where etc about it. Having worked in the field I have met people who were good at it, as intuitive as I am when there is a problem to solve, and I have also worked with imbecils. I remember one guy who I asked one time how many kilobytes were in a megabyte to test him. I think his answer was something like four or something equally retarded. When I asked him how he could be a computer repair person and not know that he replied that he didn't need to know. Needless to say I got all the systems that were hard to repair and fixed them in half the time it took him to figure out one simple problem. He wasn't incompetent by far, he'd just worked on an assembly line before and never had to deal with troubleshooting. He threw the parts together and voila, next system. Anyone can throw a system together, it takes actual knowledge of how it works to repair. Which brings me to my point. A+ cert can get you a job as a repair person, but the test is juvenile, so I never bothered to take it. Plus, jobs repairing computers don't pay well as far as I know, since in most cases its cheaper to buy a new system than pay someone to troubleshoot and fix one when they charge $50 or $60 an hour at a store.
I have never had the urge to play video games while I'm out and about in the world. I just don't get the deal with it. I can see why kids might have an interest because they have zero attention span and little control over what they're doing when their parents need to go somewhere but why do adults want this?
Also, I just thought of something. All the University students pay their University to use their connection, it isn't their own. Its a private university network. As far as I know anyhow. Admittedly I skipped dorm life.
Yes, the requirements are weaker for civil trials. However, they would need to show that you are liable for anything done with your internet connection. So my question remains, are you liable?
What would happen if someone actually stood up to them and fought the case in court? How would the RIAA prove who actually used the computer to share the files? With a computer that is used by multiple people who live in the home as well as the possibility of visitors to your home, how could they show who it was who actually shared those files? It isn't as though you sign any agreements or anything when you own a computer that makes you liable for any activity the computer is used for. How could they prove a remote user hadn't hacked your sytem and used your hard drive as a depository? They aren't the government. It isn't as though they can hack your computer or get a warrant to search it. The only thing they could prove is what protocols and networks your computer was using to access the file sharing network. Are there any class action law suits going on against the RIAA right now? Perhaps charges of racketeering should be brought against them.
I don't think it really matters that much. When a judge hands down a financial award to a complainant its usually meant to send a message, not just to award the complainant. Otherwise we wouldn't see all these million dollar lawsuits for frivolous things.
In Canada and the US anything that you create is automatically copywritten. The question is only of proof. It isn't that hard to prove damages. If someone is profitting from your copywritten work, it isn't a stretch of the imagination to see that as damages.
Read the DMCA. Whatever it is designed for, part of it includes legislation against breaking encryption. They can't slap you down with the DMCA at the same time as they are breaking it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who believes that the world was created 6000 years ago can't possibly believe in science. Unfortunately for them there is hard scientific proof that this is not the case. On the other hand there are many Christians who believe(as it says in the bible) that god's time is not our time. In other words, god's time progresses more slowly than our own. Whether thats a supernatural thing or something to do with relativity is a question unanswered. I'm personally of the opinion that the supernatural is just something we haven't yet been able to explain with science.
Just because we can't explain for certain how the universe started, doesn't mean it was "supernatural". Some day we very well may find the "missing link", explain the origins of the universe etc. That won't mean that god doesn't exist. The only time we'll be able to answer that question for certain is when we die. I can wait to have that question answered. In the meantime we believe what we feel comfortable believing. If the thought of a creator makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside then so be it. Personally I fall on the side of agnosticism. I don't care to follow any particular faith because I think that there is no way they can all be right, so how can any of them be right?
The dangers many Christians face is in taking up the position that evolution couldn't have happened because if it did happen then god doesn't exist. Its a bad position because if evolution were to be proved scientifically they'd have dug themselves a hole. On the other hand if they believe that evolution and god could go hand in hand they are on firmer ground. Instead of trying to fight each other, scientists and people of faith should be examining the evidence before them. We shouldn't forget though, that many scientists are people of faith too.
Assuming we ever have the computing power for photorealism we will finally get to a point where the next eye candy isn't what drives the game. Designers will have to rely on really good stories and interactivity with the environment to make quality games. Half Life 2 went in this direction. I hope more games go this way. The story was good and the interactivity with the world was unparalleled.
Sometimes artistic license is a bad thing, especially in movies. I expect the batmobile to look a certain way and if it doesn't then the whole movie won't feel like "Batman". If it doesn't, then what was the point of using the batman license? Just make another movie with a similar character.
I remember seeing the trailor a while ago and seeing that vehicle. I prayed to the dark lords of the sith that it wasn't the new batmobile. So assuming you are right they have answered my prayers. The new batmobile better not suck though.
social contract
n.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
There is no agreement between me and the advertisers who are trying to sell me their crap. When a commercial comes on the television I am under no obligation to watch it. When a banner ad appears at the top of a page(such as the one on the top of this page) I am under no obligation to read it. When I walk past a bench I am not required to read the ads posted on the side of it. So I see no reason why there would be any social contract between myself and a website to read their popup. If anything the social contract should be that the website should not try to control my browser in a manner that I do not want it to be used. And I definitely hate popups.
I was being facetious.
No one can read the future. Except me.
Funny how when MS is a smaller company he's against patents and when MS is a huge company with lots of patents he's all for them.
I hope the American lobby tries to butt in to get Canada to make more severe copyright laws because speaking as a Canadian, nothing makes us more stubborn than when America tries to make us do something we haven't made up our minds on. End result, no additional copyright laws.
Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies...cause Pearl Harbor Sucked, and I miss you.
Imagine some dude hacks the game and makes it repetitively shock you. Someone could actually wtfpown you over the net.
You suppress those you might as well head for the hills. Bring a gun.
I wish.
The problem with the vast majority of computer repair people is the complete lack of training. I have been using computers since I was 12 for the last 15 years. I admit I don't know everything but I have made it pretty much the focus of my academic efforts so I know a lot. I took computer science in university and in college so I not only know how to fix a computer, I know what, why, where etc about it. Having worked in the field I have met people who were good at it, as intuitive as I am when there is a problem to solve, and I have also worked with imbecils. I remember one guy who I asked one time how many kilobytes were in a megabyte to test him. I think his answer was something like four or something equally retarded. When I asked him how he could be a computer repair person and not know that he replied that he didn't need to know. Needless to say I got all the systems that were hard to repair and fixed them in half the time it took him to figure out one simple problem. He wasn't incompetent by far, he'd just worked on an assembly line before and never had to deal with troubleshooting. He threw the parts together and voila, next system. Anyone can throw a system together, it takes actual knowledge of how it works to repair. Which brings me to my point. A+ cert can get you a job as a repair person, but the test is juvenile, so I never bothered to take it. Plus, jobs repairing computers don't pay well as far as I know, since in most cases its cheaper to buy a new system than pay someone to troubleshoot and fix one when they charge $50 or $60 an hour at a store.
Thats why we invented books and reading. Its a lot cheaper too.
I have never had the urge to play video games while I'm out and about in the world. I just don't get the deal with it. I can see why kids might have an interest because they have zero attention span and little control over what they're doing when their parents need to go somewhere but why do adults want this?
Also, I just thought of something. All the University students pay their University to use their connection, it isn't their own. Its a private university network. As far as I know anyhow. Admittedly I skipped dorm life.
Yes, the requirements are weaker for civil trials. However, they would need to show that you are liable for anything done with your internet connection. So my question remains, are you liable?
What would happen if someone actually stood up to them and fought the case in court? How would the RIAA prove who actually used the computer to share the files? With a computer that is used by multiple people who live in the home as well as the possibility of visitors to your home, how could they show who it was who actually shared those files? It isn't as though you sign any agreements or anything when you own a computer that makes you liable for any activity the computer is used for. How could they prove a remote user hadn't hacked your sytem and used your hard drive as a depository? They aren't the government. It isn't as though they can hack your computer or get a warrant to search it. The only thing they could prove is what protocols and networks your computer was using to access the file sharing network. Are there any class action law suits going on against the RIAA right now? Perhaps charges of racketeering should be brought against them.
Anti competitive BS is all patents are. Patents are basically a pissing contest. I thought of it first so you owe me money.
Homo? That explains Merry and Pippen. Wait...nothing could possibly explain Merry and Pippen.
...is it faster than the speed of lint? I know its not faster than Ludicrous Speed.
I don't think it really matters that much. When a judge hands down a financial award to a complainant its usually meant to send a message, not just to award the complainant. Otherwise we wouldn't see all these million dollar lawsuits for frivolous things.
In Canada and the US anything that you create is automatically copywritten. The question is only of proof. It isn't that hard to prove damages. If someone is profitting from your copywritten work, it isn't a stretch of the imagination to see that as damages.
Read the DMCA. Whatever it is designed for, part of it includes legislation against breaking encryption. They can't slap you down with the DMCA at the same time as they are breaking it.