If you redefine both "art" and "games" to mean a exclusive set of properties, it makes perfect sense to not call games art. It just isn't a very useful argument.
My steak is art because it is fish and your broccoli is not because it is a gnome (for specific definitions of "art", "fish" and "gnome").
How about the millions of people in the American South, who use Coke to refer to any carbonated beverage no matter the type. "I'd like a Coke", "What kind?", "Orange"...
Or the guys who produced a language map of the US, showing where people use the word "Coke" to refer to any carbonated beverage...
Why would anyone produce ANYTHING in that case. When it turns out in 10 years that the paint I used on the CDs I sold caused cancer (which I had no way to know about) and I can be sued into non-existence. Or that distilled water leeches out vital nutrients and kills people, or that adding minerals to water causes some sort of allergic reaction and kills people, or not adding minerals to water causes some sort of allergic reaction and kills people (or all 3), and I get sued into oblivion?
With unlimited liability to individuals based on actions of someone else in the company, why would anyone in their right mind own a company?
But they aren't copying Google's results. They are spying on the user and finding out where they go. Your outrage is pointed the wrong way. If they searched for a junk phrase and clicked on a link on the 12th page, I suspect that would come up on Bing as the first result.
They are not spying on Google, they are spying on YOU!
My problem is slamming on the brake the first time I would normally take the car out of gear (stupid break pedal where the clutch should be). It usually only takes the one time before I remember tho.
Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers.
I'm sure you do. All that means is the media did a great job blowing up a minority opinion into a global disaster scenario.
In short, there's a huge difference between a false scare perpetuated by the media and a real concern that's held by the majority of scientists. The former characterizes global cooling, the latter is true of global warming.
How do you distinguish between the two? Since the media is good at blowing up minority opinion, how do you know that isn't what is happening now?
ID is used as an explanation for creation. Having a limited creator just pushes the question to them. If we were created by some alien, who created them? I'm not trying to say that it is impossible to create something artificially, but you are the first person I have seen that has said that ID is not a 'first creation' idea.
The more limited the creator, the more ridiculous the theory though. We can't even create an AI, would something like us be able to create the massive complexity of life on Earth? To get to a being(s) that could create all life on Earth, you pretty much have to get mighty close to omnipotence (in my opinion). Minimally any creator capable of creating something of this complexity could be quite reasonably assumed to be able to falsify any evidence that you would use to disprove the concept.
That (as I see it) is the core problem with calling ID falsifiable.
Hmmm, then could we consider ID more of an Archeological field?
But for argument's sake, yes, the pig can come up with a way to prove that I didn't create it (if indeed I hadn't) things like showing that it has a demonstrable mother, or a clone that is older etc. The reason we accept evolution is the demonstrable history we have. We can show ancestry so ID goes out the window for the most part.
Except that doesn't prove that you didn't create the pig because it could just as easily be evidence falsified by you, the sufficiently clever multi-assed pig creator. Once you have posited the existence of the creator, you can simply ascribe more abilities to that creator quite simply. And God is commonly seen to be omni-potent.
If the pig had sufficiently limited you (in its theory) to just being able to create it and not able to falsify evidence, then you could call it falsifiable. But if the pig decides that you created EVERYTHING (which ID proponents usually do), there is nothing that can be used to prove that you didn't create it, since you could just have easily falsified any evidence. That is not a scientific theory, since it is not possible to be disproven.
Now saying something is not scientific does not mean that it is not true (nor does it mean that it is true). It just isn't science and so does not belong in a science class.
I'd call ID religion or philosophy, myself. It just isn't science, nor is it history (which is where I would put Archeology).
The difference is that the 'designer' in question had no ability to cause the change to happen (so no ability to design). He simply tweaked the environment to highlight the change and make it a substantial advantage. It is evolution through artificial selection, not intelligent design.
Depends on what form of ID is being discussed. If I genetically engineer a Pig (from a fundamental level, proteins and all) with 3 asses, that would be considered intelligent design. If the pig were of an intelligence level to plot out it's origins it may want to know why it evolved to have 3 asses, when in actuality it really didn't evolve and could prove it by finding the beakers and methods that led to its arrival.
But could the pig come up with a way to prove that you didn't create it (if indeed you hadn't)? The issue with scientific theories is falsifiability. Even your example doesn't prove that the beakers weren't put there by a sufficiently clever non-pig creating charlatan.
ID cannot be even theoretically disproven, that is why it is not a scientific theory.
Until they had to compromise to get the country to be actually formed. The removal of the anti-slavery portion of the Declaration of Independence for example...
A true idealist is a zealot. Get someone that can compromise if you actually want something done.
No, it would be your constituents' jobs to kick you out of office (or not elect you to begin with) because they feel that you are not a good representative of them.
Fundamentally, the job of a elected representative in a representative democracy is not to parrot when the majority of their constituents say or think today, but to act as a leader and do what they individually think is right. It is the constituents' jobs to kick out those representatives that have bad judgment in what they do and to properly vet them before they get elected.
The core problem is that neither side is actually DOING their job very well at the moment...
Have you compared the death rates of the soldiers vs. the 'militias'? The figures I have seen range from 1 soldier to 10 militia (Somali estimate) to 1 soldier to 100 militia (US estimate), Red Cross estimate would put it at 20 militia per solider. And this was in a worse-case style rout.
And more to the point you put limitations that were not in the initial questioning on 3 of them. So clearly you are a criminal sort that has something to hide. Why do you hate freedom?:P
Even though this doesn't make a lick of sense from a business perspective and it would result in most software companies going out of business. Out of curiosity, do you have any factual basis for this whatsoever? Or is it just something you believe?
The most valuable skepticism is resistance to what is already 'known'. It is taking things you believe to be true and checking to see if they actually are.
That is the kind of skepticism that we REALLY need and it is something that is very much not innate to humans. I think the best way to teach skepticism is to teach the idea that you might be wrong, about anything. Not that you ARE wrong, but to be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.
I am ultimately secure in this fact. So much so that I don't feel the need to cut them down with misogynist humor. Instead, I prefer to treat them and others the way I prefer to be treated myself: with respect. Wow, I do the same thing! I make fun of them, just like I would prefer to be treated. Respect is highly overrated, 'respect me' is usually perverted to mean 'fear me'. I can respect you and make fun of you at the same time. If I don't respect you, I don't find you worthy of the effort of making fun of you (and for that matter being unable to take a joke will make me respect you less).
I don't like any humor based on race, gender, or any other attribute beyond the control of the subject (including height, weight, disability, etc). By your logic, I must be the most prejudiced person ever. That is pretty much the conclusion I would come to. That and/or you have no sense of humor. Out of curiosity what would you consider to be something suitable for jokes? I assume that stupidity would fall in the same section as weight and/or disability. I am much more inclined to make fun of people for things they have no control of, because that way (even if it is taken wrongly) it is not an indictment of their choices in life, but a statement on the universe in general.
Music is my most important past-time, far more than TV, movies, gaming, etc. I do research my music well and, yes, because I won't buy an album before I know it's worth the money, I do occasionally download from Usenet or BitTorrent to preview it; but then, I buy it if I like it and add it to my collection of 1200+ official CDs or just delete the tracks as it's not even worth the disk space. Incidentally, I don't deny my own slight hypocrisy for using Usenet of BitTorrent in the first place - my only defence is that the obscure rock and psychedelia music I do enjoy doesn't get played on radio (particularly here in the UK) and if the RIAA were to check my hard disk, they'd only see MP3s on it which were also on the original CDs in my collection. However, by doing things this way, I never buy a CD that I don't consider to be not worth the money I paid for it - that in turns means I'm very satisfied with CDs as products and I therefore go and buy more of them as a result. Except that according to the RIAA's theory, you are are a slimy thief that is stealing music. If you have downloaded music that you already own, you are slimy thief. If you download music and then buy it, you are a slimy thief. If you download music and then don't buy it (even if you promptly delete it) you are a doubly slimy thief that is actively stealing money from their babies' mouths (eww). You are actually arguing the most common argument against the RIAA's tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
If you redefine both "art" and "games" to mean a exclusive set of properties, it makes perfect sense to not call games art. It just isn't a very useful argument.
My steak is art because it is fish and your broccoli is not because it is a gnome (for specific definitions of "art", "fish" and "gnome").
How about the millions of people in the American South, who use Coke to refer to any carbonated beverage no matter the type. "I'd like a Coke", "What kind?", "Orange"...
Or the guys who produced a language map of the US, showing where people use the word "Coke" to refer to any carbonated beverage...
. An analog-modem speed internet that always works is worth a lot more than a gigabit internet that doesn't work when it's needed the most.
Not the vast majority of the time. Which is what people see and what they care about, until the moment that it is too late.
Why would anyone produce ANYTHING in that case. When it turns out in 10 years that the paint I used on the CDs I sold caused cancer (which I had no way to know about) and I can be sued into non-existence. Or that distilled water leeches out vital nutrients and kills people, or that adding minerals to water causes some sort of allergic reaction and kills people, or not adding minerals to water causes some sort of allergic reaction and kills people (or all 3), and I get sued into oblivion?
With unlimited liability to individuals based on actions of someone else in the company, why would anyone in their right mind own a company?
But they aren't copying Google's results. They are spying on the user and finding out where they go. Your outrage is pointed the wrong way. If they searched for a junk phrase and clicked on a link on the 12th page, I suspect that would come up on Bing as the first result.
They are not spying on Google, they are spying on YOU!
My problem is slamming on the brake the first time I would normally take the car out of gear (stupid break pedal where the clutch should be). It usually only takes the one time before I remember tho.
What about cracker jokes? Do you think whites are the only people capable of racism? What are you, some kind of racist?
Well, I was 20 at the time. I vividly remember the scare stories in all the newspapers.
I'm sure you do. All that means is the media did a great job blowing up a minority opinion into a global disaster scenario.
In short, there's a huge difference between a false scare perpetuated by the media and a real concern that's held by the majority of scientists. The former characterizes global cooling, the latter is true of global warming.
How do you distinguish between the two? Since the media is good at blowing up minority opinion, how do you know that isn't what is happening now?
ID is used as an explanation for creation. Having a limited creator just pushes the question to them. If we were created by some alien, who created them? I'm not trying to say that it is impossible to create something artificially, but you are the first person I have seen that has said that ID is not a 'first creation' idea.
The more limited the creator, the more ridiculous the theory though. We can't even create an AI, would something like us be able to create the massive complexity of life on Earth? To get to a being(s) that could create all life on Earth, you pretty much have to get mighty close to omnipotence (in my opinion). Minimally any creator capable of creating something of this complexity could be quite reasonably assumed to be able to falsify any evidence that you would use to disprove the concept.
That (as I see it) is the core problem with calling ID falsifiable.
Hmmm, then could we consider ID more of an Archeological field?
But for argument's sake, yes, the pig can come up with a way to prove that I didn't create it (if indeed I hadn't) things like showing that it has a demonstrable mother, or a clone that is older etc. The reason we accept evolution is the demonstrable history we have. We can show ancestry so ID goes out the window for the most part.
Except that doesn't prove that you didn't create the pig because it could just as easily be evidence falsified by you, the sufficiently clever multi-assed pig creator. Once you have posited the existence of the creator, you can simply ascribe more abilities to that creator quite simply. And God is commonly seen to be omni-potent.
If the pig had sufficiently limited you (in its theory) to just being able to create it and not able to falsify evidence, then you could call it falsifiable. But if the pig decides that you created EVERYTHING (which ID proponents usually do), there is nothing that can be used to prove that you didn't create it, since you could just have easily falsified any evidence. That is not a scientific theory, since it is not possible to be disproven.
Now saying something is not scientific does not mean that it is not true (nor does it mean that it is true). It just isn't science and so does not belong in a science class.
I'd call ID religion or philosophy, myself. It just isn't science, nor is it history (which is where I would put Archeology).
The difference is that the 'designer' in question had no ability to cause the change to happen (so no ability to design). He simply tweaked the environment to highlight the change and make it a substantial advantage. It is evolution through artificial selection, not intelligent design.
Depends on what form of ID is being discussed. If I genetically engineer a Pig (from a fundamental level, proteins and all) with 3 asses, that would be considered intelligent design. If the pig were of an intelligence level to plot out it's origins it may want to know why it evolved to have 3 asses, when in actuality it really didn't evolve and could prove it by finding the beakers and methods that led to its arrival.
But could the pig come up with a way to prove that you didn't create it (if indeed you hadn't)? The issue with scientific theories is falsifiability. Even your example doesn't prove that the beakers weren't put there by a sufficiently clever non-pig creating charlatan.
ID cannot be even theoretically disproven, that is why it is not a scientific theory.
What about are constitutional right to not be killed by terrorist?
You don't have one. If you want to be free, that is one of the prices you pay. If you don't want to pay it, get out of my country.
Until they had to compromise to get the country to be actually formed. The removal of the anti-slavery portion of the Declaration of Independence for example...
A true idealist is a zealot. Get someone that can compromise if you actually want something done.
No, it would be your constituents' jobs to kick you out of office (or not elect you to begin with) because they feel that you are not a good representative of them.
Fundamentally, the job of a elected representative in a representative democracy is not to parrot when the majority of their constituents say or think today, but to act as a leader and do what they individually think is right. It is the constituents' jobs to kick out those representatives that have bad judgment in what they do and to properly vet them before they get elected.
The core problem is that neither side is actually DOING their job very well at the moment...
No, it is called 'Fraud'. Stealing would be taking the book, not selling it under false pretenses.
Have you compared the death rates of the soldiers vs. the 'militias'? The figures I have seen range from 1 soldier to 10 militia (Somali estimate) to 1 soldier to 100 militia (US estimate), Red Cross estimate would put it at 20 militia per solider. And this was in a worse-case style rout.
And more to the point you put limitations that were not in the initial questioning on 3 of them. So clearly you are a criminal sort that has something to hide. Why do you hate freedom? :P
The most valuable skepticism is resistance to what is already 'known'. It is taking things you believe to be true and checking to see if they actually are.
That is the kind of skepticism that we REALLY need and it is something that is very much not innate to humans. I think the best way to teach skepticism is to teach the idea that you might be wrong, about anything. Not that you ARE wrong, but to be open to the possibility that you might be wrong.
Ah but if you don't think of the terrorists, the children have won!
Two words: Britney comeback.
It can ALWAYS get worse....
Incidentally, I don't deny my own slight hypocrisy for using Usenet of BitTorrent in the first place - my only defence is that the obscure rock and psychedelia music I do enjoy doesn't get played on radio (particularly here in the UK) and if the RIAA were to check my hard disk, they'd only see MP3s on it which were also on the original CDs in my collection. However, by doing things this way, I never buy a CD that I don't consider to be not worth the money I paid for it - that in turns means I'm very satisfied with CDs as products and I therefore go and buy more of them as a result. Except that according to the RIAA's theory, you are are a slimy thief that is stealing music. If you have downloaded music that you already own, you are slimy thief. If you download music and then buy it, you are a slimy thief. If you download music and then don't buy it (even if you promptly delete it) you are a doubly slimy thief that is actively stealing money from their babies' mouths (eww). You are actually arguing the most common argument against the RIAA's tactics.