"Fitness", within the context of evolution, relates only to reproductive success rates within a population. If a "simple" structure is sufficient for reproductive success, then the "simple" structure will remain present over time.
Evolution is not driven by "purpose". Evolution is a consequence of imperfect replication; is not a movement toward a goal.
"Intelligent Design" is the conjecture that certain biological structures could not have emerged through the process of evolution and therefore (a non-sequitur reasoning method) an unspecified "designer" employed unspecified methods to implement the "design" of these structures. Not only is the conjecture completely untestable (as undefined mechanisms cannot be tested), but many of the supposed "irreducibly complex" structures are not actually irreducibly complex. A common failing of "design" advocates is an assumption that biological structures always emerge through purely additive processes, when in fact a process that removes redundant structures could leave behind structures that could not have existed in partial form on their own (but that could have existed in partial form along with the no-longer-present redundant structures).
Some games do in fact request Administrator rights when run from Steam on every launch. Typically, this is a consequence of a bugged launch condition check that fails to accurately detect that needed libraries are often installed; choosing not to authenticate will still allow those games to run properly, and workarounds exist to eliminate the incorrect detection entirely.
The term "assault weapon" is a nebulous term based upon the presence of features that do not affect actual firearm function. Most "assault weapons" are in fact civilian sporting rifles featuring a pistol grip and at least one other defining feature that are most commonly seen at target ranges and occasionally in the hands of hunters.
The term is applied for the specific purpose of confusing those unfamiliar with firearms into believing that common civilian sporting firearms are actually military weapons.
What makes you think that the rates of decay have always and will always be the same?
Significant alterations in radioacitve decay rates would imply events that have not been observed; for example, alterations of decay rates posited by some creationists would imply that the earth's crust should have melted a few thousand years ago yet evidence of such a catastrophic destruction of the planet has not been observed.
Additionally, multiple radiometric dating methods consistently produce results that agree with one another. It is far more rational to assume that the decay rates for all of these isotopes are constant than it is to assume that they have changed at varying rates that coincidentally produce the same recorded age at this particular moment in time. Finally, no one has offered any mechanism to allow for significant alterations of decay rates, while an explanation for decay rates consistent with a constant effect has been provided.
Email spammers are inherently and universally sociopaths. It is not unreasonable to consider that any given email spammer would, if it could be profitable, commit murder.
The problem with that "point", howeevr, is that it is false. Additionally, those who do claim that evidence "points" to such a "Designer" have offered no explanatory mechanisms by which any "design" was implemented. If the physical processes by which an event occurred cannot be specified, then the event itself can never be more than pure speculation; it is impossible to derive predictions of the aftermath of an event if the event itself cannot be described in terms of physical processes.
so, somehow dna enters the picture. explain to me why a protozoa has so many chromosomes if life is a progression toward a higher order?
Life is not a progression toward a "higher order". Your question is founded upon a misconception, and thus it is not valid.
However, I do not feel that it answers the fundamental question of how it all came to be as there is no fossil evidence to support this long term development that supposedly took place.
So cutting off debate and declaring the problem solved is not science it is just as much theology as saying harry thunder invented the world.
No one has declared that the "problem is solved". Research continues toward a better understanding of various lineages of descent. No "debate" is being cut off. The problem is that advocates of "intelligent design" are seeking special treatment; they have no facts and no evidence, no mechanism and no predictions, yet they insist that their claims be given the status of "theory" in spite of failing to meet all required criteria for a scientific explanation.
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design. If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns.
Please explain this assertion. How, exactly, have "design patterns" been "re-used". Specifically, explain the physical processes involved in the "re-use" and the ultimate implementation of these "design patterns". Explain the entity or entities responsible for this implementation, state how this implementation was accomplished, explain how the original "design" was originally implemented and explain how you have inferred the existence of the entities who engaged in the alleged "designing".
They're continued iconic use of artist illustrations of evolution of man from ape to homo sapien. Even after a fair number of list were proven to be frauds or at best honest but foolish mistakes.
Evolution implies a number of consequences for which evidence can be gathered. For example, an understanding of how DNA is replicated across offspring has led to implications regarding how DNA should appear across various primate species based upon lineages previously established through the fossil record. Thus far, the patterns expected have been observed.
Your suggestion that the theory of evolution is merely "speculation" is not accurate, and it suggests that you do not actually understand the theory.
The user who runs the application must still have the credentials for an Administrator account.
If you are seeking a means to allow certain "backup admins" to run only specific applications with Administrative credentials, while not allowing them Administrative access for the entire system, then you should seek a third party application that can create a wrapper executable to launch applications using the stored and encrypted username and password of another user. Such software exists, though I am currently unable to locate any free versions.
With such a utility, you can create a "wrapper" executable, enter the username and password of an Administrator account, and assign a specified utility to the wrapper. Anyone who runs the wrapper executable will launch the target application with the credentials of the Administrator user. This, however, is not necessarily fully secure; any application that allows access to Windows Explorer (which is the case with most software featuring a "Save" or "Open" file dialogue) could potentially allow for a backdoor to launch other applications with elevated privileges.
If your Administrator account is the default "Administrator" account -- renamed or not -- then the default "Run As" user will be that account, whatever name it may have. I do not believe that there are any restrictions for using "Run As" to run under a user account that has no set password, but you will have to try to be sure. That would be the only obstacle that I can imagine.
Some HP software does not allow for installation under "Run As". I am aware of no other software with such a limitation.
I stated that there is a means to launch applications while logged in as one user so that the application runs using different user credentials. This does, however, require that the user who launches the application enter the credentials for the different user account.
There are third party tools for allowing applications to run under a different user account without any extra credentials. This is accomplished by storing an encrypted hash of the alternative user account in a wrapper that calls the executable. I have used such a tool to give a user access to a utility that required, due to incompetent programming by the developers at Intuit, Administrative access. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to locate that software at this time.
Typically, you may use the "Run As" option within windows to launch an application with different user credentials so that it may perform tasks that require Administrator-level access. Additionally, some applications may be user-updated so long as the user has write access to the software's installation directory, though this is often not recommended.
While it may be difficult to terminate entire networks and IP address ranges, a more effective solution would be to identify the individuals who are directly responsible for sending unsolicited just e-mail through "botnets" and the individuals who are responsible for providing access to these illegally hijacked "botnets" and then kill them. Such an action would be most effective if done brutally and painfully, through acts of torture, with videos and images of the events and the aftermath released to the public as a warning to others who might engage in the same behaviour.
While the BBC series was a good show, I cannot imagine that the proposed US version of Life on Mars could have worked out as well. There is only so far that the premise can stretch, and the BBC was able to pull it off because the relatively short run allowed for it while a US network would not want to pick up a show that was only intended to run for a relatively short number of seasons.
I guess you missed the point, I am pointing out the amount of information contained in the DNA. Some estimates, using your scenario is on order of a magnitude in difference between an Amoeba and a human in terms of DNA information content. DNA of amoeba: 5 x 10^8 bits of information Human: 6x10^9 bits of information Information is a generalized term related to the specified complexity of the DNA.
Perahps you can actually explain these numbers rather than just asserting them. How do you measure information in DNA? Be specific. A previous poster offered two strings of identical length and asked for an evaluation of which contained more information; you have not responded to that. Why?
Mutations of the DNA in the lab have shown a loss of information most of the time and never an increase in information.
This is where you reveal that you haven't actually done research. Mutations typically change information rather than remove (or add to) it -- unless you are using a different definition of "information" than a typical geneticist would use when discussing "information" as it relates to genetics; if so, present your definition so that it can be evaluated. Mutations can also add information through gene duplication; while gene duplication itself merely replicates existing "information" such that the same information occurs twice where it once occured only once, further point mutations on one of the duplicates will result in an increase in the total information in the genome. See here, and at least try to explain why the information contained therein is false rather than dismissing it outright without bothering to address a single detail (as so many creationists often do when dealing with information from Talk Origins).
And information isn't just duplication of the same DNA, that is similar to make a copy of the same letter on the copy machine - no new information, just the same information twice.
True, but when a gene is duplicated changes to one of the copies do result in new information, because the result is a net increase in the total information.
Tests have never been able to show where information is added - which leads to dramatically different species/kinds.
This claim is just false. Have you actually done any research?
Not sure what you mean by the mechanism that the designer used,
You assert that a "designer" is responsible for patterns of similarity in genetics across species through "code reuse". This implies that a "designer" of some sort exists and that this "designer" used some mechanism to put DNA in place across individual species. State the mechanism that this "designer" used.
I fail to understand why my request could be considered puzzling.
but you raise an important other point that evolution cannot explain. We all agree DNA exists and contains the blueprint for how any living organism grows and is fashioned into what it becomes. DNA by itself does nothing, it is the blueprint, you still need the "computer" if you will that interprets that information and causes certain chemical interactions to occur to produce the expected result.
Are you referring to RNA and ribosomes?
Where DID that computer come from? Kind of like a chicken and the egg problem for evolution, but not a problem for ID.
You are incorrect. The theory of evolution addresses the emergence of extant biodiversity from common ancestry. The process requires extant life at the "beginning" to occur. How that original life came to exist, while a subject of interest to biologists, is not itself a part of the theory of evolution and never has been.
God created the computer and the DNA.
Interesting. Major ID proponents, like Michael Behe, have claimed that "Intelligent Design" need not involve a "God", and that the "designer" need not be a deity or supernatural in origin. This claim has even
When you look at the DNA for a single-celled organism compared to that of a fish, you will find a fish has a lot more DNA information not present in the single-celled organism.
An amoeba has more DNA (by molecular count) than homo sapiens. It would appear as though you have not thoroughly researched the subject on which you speak.
As to the remarkable coincidence, this article covers this quite nicely and thoroughly. A very short summary would be that having similar DNA simply means a designer uses the same building blocks for similar things, but does not definitely indicate that one species evolved from another.
Please explain the mechanism by which the "designer" implemented the alleged "design".
Deus Ex started life as a PC game and was then ported to a console (the PS2). To make the game more accessible to the console interface of a gamepad, certain system elements (such as the inventory system) were streamlined down to fit the platform. The elements had worked fine on the PC, but they were hard to manage without the keyboard and mouse interface not standard on game consoles. Additionally, some of the larger levels were broken up into smaller areas to fit the memory limitations of the system.
Deus Ex was a PC game that was ported to consoles and adjusted to fit the new platform during the porting process. That is the appropriate means of handling a port.
Deus Ex: Invisible War was designed as a console game from the beginning. The developers admitted as much during production; they claimed that it would first be built for the XBox. As a result, the interface was built for a console gamer using a gamepad rather than a keyboard and mouse. The levels were designed to fit the memory of the specific game console for which it was built. The developers claimed that the PC version would feature larger contiguous areas where the XBox version was broken up into smaller areas for memory limitations. They lied. Instead, they didn't adjust the game for the PC at all. They maintained the tiny, console-designed levels even on the PC version. They did not adjust the interface at all. Version 1.0 of the game barely involved the mouse in the inventory and biomod management screens, a terrible design element so unpopular that it had to be fixed in a subsequent patch.
Without even getting into the gameplay elements "streamlined" down, obviously for the purpose of making the game more "accessible" to console gamers not used to as much intense inventory and character development management, Deus Ex: Invisible War was a console game that was dumped, not ported, onto the PC without any consideration for the differences in the two platforms. This is a perfect example of how not to "port" a game.
Can you hit a target 10ft in front of you? I know my gf can't and she has a much more steady arm than someone 3x her age. Hitting a target isn't as easy as they make it look in the movies. They make it look easy to pump an entire clip into someone from 20ft away or more, which is very unrealistic.
I routinely shoot at a human-silhouette target from a minimum of 21 feet (7 yards), usually farther back. I'm not a marksman by any means, but I rarely, if ever, have a session where any shots stray from the target area and most of my shots are very near the center of the target. My headshot attempts aren't always as impressive, but I'd still say that I maintain at least 80% accuracy per target when taking shots there (and I only shoot there because I'm working to tighten my grouping).
Put your avg person under duress and they couldn't hit a horse from 10ft.
Please justify this assertion. If I can hit the representation of the center of mass of a human-shaped target at 21 feet when calm, I don't see why I couldn't hit a similar target at less than half the distance even if under duress. Yes, my hands may not be as steady, but I don't think that I'll be trembling that much.
It is pointless to own a gun if you aren't going to practice using it.
This is true. This is why people who own firearms shold know how to properly aim and shoot them, and also how to safely store them and how to maintain them.
Also attempting violence on an intruder is silliness as well. If she misses she's dead.
I think that I understand now. Your girlfriend must have been trying to hit a 10ft-distance target with a smoothbore single-shot musket. You might want to look into a more up-to-date firearm. Contemporary firearms can fire off more than one shot in succession, and they have rifled barrels which greatly improve accuracy through a science called "ballistics" which helps prevent the fired projectile from tumbling while travelling down the barrel.
Why not a realistic solution: give the intruder what they want, don't instigate violence, and call the police.
So you are trusting that giving an intruder what the intruder wants will invariably result in the intruder leaving without inflicting personal harm? Moreover, why should I give the intruder what the intruder wants? What, exactly, entitles a home invader to my personal property?
Why do you even mention a baseball bat?
Maybe he/she mentioned it because any defense is better than no defense.
You state it as if it's the only other option.
Of course it isn't. You could try using a knife, or pepper spray. Or any large blunt object, or any kind of easily-weilded sharp object.
There is the non-violent option.
You mean snivelling like a coward, leaving yourself at the mercy of someone who has already shown that he or she does not repsect your property or your privacy, but desperately hoping that they will still somehow respect your personal safety?
As soon as you pose a violent threat, then you are a legitimate target.
This is false. A homeowner (or renter, or apartment dweller) is never a "legitimate target" against a criminal home invader. The home invader makes him or herself a "legitimate target" through the act of home invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fitness", within the context of evolution, relates only to reproductive success rates within a population. If a "simple" structure is sufficient for reproductive success, then the "simple" structure will remain present over time.
Evolution is not driven by "purpose". Evolution is a consequence of imperfect replication; is not a movement toward a goal.
"Intelligent Design" is the conjecture that certain biological structures could not have emerged through the process of evolution and therefore (a non-sequitur reasoning method) an unspecified "designer" employed unspecified methods to implement the "design" of these structures. Not only is the conjecture completely untestable (as undefined mechanisms cannot be tested), but many of the supposed "irreducibly complex" structures are not actually irreducibly complex. A common failing of "design" advocates is an assumption that biological structures always emerge through purely additive processes, when in fact a process that removes redundant structures could leave behind structures that could not have existed in partial form on their own (but that could have existed in partial form along with the no-longer-present redundant structures).
I am somewhat surprised that the city is not blaming the gun range for the lead contamination in every body of water in the city.
Some games do in fact request Administrator rights when run from Steam on every launch. Typically, this is a consequence of a bugged launch condition check that fails to accurately detect that needed libraries are often installed; choosing not to authenticate will still allow those games to run properly, and workarounds exist to eliminate the incorrect detection entirely.
The term "assault weapon" is a nebulous term based upon the presence of features that do not affect actual firearm function. Most "assault weapons" are in fact civilian sporting rifles featuring a pistol grip and at least one other defining feature that are most commonly seen at target ranges and occasionally in the hands of hunters.
The term is applied for the specific purpose of confusing those unfamiliar with firearms into believing that common civilian sporting firearms are actually military weapons.
There is evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed dramatically over time.
Then you should be able to reference this evidence. Please do so.
What makes you think that the rates of decay have always and will always be the same?
Significant alterations in radioacitve decay rates would imply events that have not been observed; for example, alterations of decay rates posited by some creationists would imply that the earth's crust should have melted a few thousand years ago yet evidence of such a catastrophic destruction of the planet has not been observed.
Additionally, multiple radiometric dating methods consistently produce results that agree with one another. It is far more rational to assume that the decay rates for all of these isotopes are constant than it is to assume that they have changed at varying rates that coincidentally produce the same recorded age at this particular moment in time. Finally, no one has offered any mechanism to allow for significant alterations of decay rates, while an explanation for decay rates consistent with a constant effect has been provided.
You always claim that we ID theorists
Please define "ID theory".
What relevance do means of "ignoring God" have to do with a discussion of evolution?
Email spammers are inherently and universally sociopaths. It is not unreasonable to consider that any given email spammer would, if it could be profitable, commit murder.
The problem with that "point", howeevr, is that it is false. Additionally, those who do claim that evidence "points" to such a "Designer" have offered no explanatory mechanisms by which any "design" was implemented. If the physical processes by which an event occurred cannot be specified, then the event itself can never be more than pure speculation; it is impossible to derive predictions of the aftermath of an event if the event itself cannot be described in terms of physical processes.
so, somehow dna enters the picture. explain to me why a protozoa has so many chromosomes if life is a progression toward a higher order?
Life is not a progression toward a "higher order". Your question is founded upon a misconception, and thus it is not valid.
However, I do not feel that it answers the fundamental question of how it all came to be as there is no fossil evidence to support this long term development that supposedly took place.
There exists extensive fossil evidence for vertebrate evolution. Do you wish for additional information?
It also fails to be able to demonstrate how these supposed mutations survived as nature is notoriously cruel to mutation.
Then perhaps you can debunk more than thirty observed instances of speciation documented in multiple peer reviewed studies.
So cutting off debate and declaring the problem solved is not science it is just as much theology as saying harry thunder invented the world.
No one has declared that the "problem is solved". Research continues toward a better understanding of various lineages of descent. No "debate" is being cut off. The problem is that advocates of "intelligent design" are seeking special treatment; they have no facts and no evidence, no mechanism and no predictions, yet they insist that their claims be given the status of "theory" in spite of failing to meet all required criteria for a scientific explanation.
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design. If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns.
Please explain this assertion. How, exactly, have "design patterns" been "re-used". Specifically, explain the physical processes involved in the "re-use" and the ultimate implementation of these "design patterns". Explain the entity or entities responsible for this implementation, state how this implementation was accomplished, explain how the original "design" was originally implemented and explain how you have inferred the existence of the entities who engaged in the alleged "designing".
They're continued iconic use of artist illustrations of evolution of man from ape to homo sapien. Even after a fair number of list were proven to be frauds or at best honest but foolish mistakes.
Please provide specific examples.
Evolution implies a number of consequences for which evidence can be gathered. For example, an understanding of how DNA is replicated across offspring has led to implications regarding how DNA should appear across various primate species based upon lineages previously established through the fossil record. Thus far, the patterns expected have been observed.
Your suggestion that the theory of evolution is merely "speculation" is not accurate, and it suggests that you do not actually understand the theory.
Your desire would not result in sufficient suffering for either Comcast or to e360.
The user who runs the application must still have the credentials for an Administrator account.
If you are seeking a means to allow certain "backup admins" to run only specific applications with Administrative credentials, while not allowing them Administrative access for the entire system, then you should seek a third party application that can create a wrapper executable to launch applications using the stored and encrypted username and password of another user. Such software exists, though I am currently unable to locate any free versions.
With such a utility, you can create a "wrapper" executable, enter the username and password of an Administrator account, and assign a specified utility to the wrapper. Anyone who runs the wrapper executable will launch the target application with the credentials of the Administrator user. This, however, is not necessarily fully secure; any application that allows access to Windows Explorer (which is the case with most software featuring a "Save" or "Open" file dialogue) could potentially allow for a backdoor to launch other applications with elevated privileges.
If your Administrator account is the default "Administrator" account -- renamed or not -- then the default "Run As" user will be that account, whatever name it may have. I do not believe that there are any restrictions for using "Run As" to run under a user account that has no set password, but you will have to try to be sure. That would be the only obstacle that I can imagine.
Some HP software does not allow for installation under "Run As". I am aware of no other software with such a limitation.
I stated that there is a means to launch applications while logged in as one user so that the application runs using different user credentials. This does, however, require that the user who launches the application enter the credentials for the different user account.
There are third party tools for allowing applications to run under a different user account without any extra credentials. This is accomplished by storing an encrypted hash of the alternative user account in a wrapper that calls the executable. I have used such a tool to give a user access to a utility that required, due to incompetent programming by the developers at Intuit, Administrative access. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to locate that software at this time.
Typically, you may use the "Run As" option within windows to launch an application with different user credentials so that it may perform tasks that require Administrator-level access. Additionally, some applications may be user-updated so long as the user has write access to the software's installation directory, though this is often not recommended.
While it may be difficult to terminate entire networks and IP address ranges, a more effective solution would be to identify the individuals who are directly responsible for sending unsolicited just e-mail through "botnets" and the individuals who are responsible for providing access to these illegally hijacked "botnets" and then kill them. Such an action would be most effective if done brutally and painfully, through acts of torture, with videos and images of the events and the aftermath released to the public as a warning to others who might engage in the same behaviour.
While the BBC series was a good show, I cannot imagine that the proposed US version of Life on Mars could have worked out as well. There is only so far that the premise can stretch, and the BBC was able to pull it off because the relatively short run allowed for it while a US network would not want to pick up a show that was only intended to run for a relatively short number of seasons.
I guess you missed the point, I am pointing out the amount of information contained in the DNA. Some estimates, using your scenario is on order of a magnitude in difference between an Amoeba and a human in terms of DNA information content. DNA of amoeba: 5 x 10^8 bits of information Human: 6x10^9 bits of information Information is a generalized term related to the specified complexity of the DNA.
Perahps you can actually explain these numbers rather than just asserting them. How do you measure information in DNA? Be specific. A previous poster offered two strings of identical length and asked for an evaluation of which contained more information; you have not responded to that. Why?
Mutations of the DNA in the lab have shown a loss of information most of the time and never an increase in information.
This is where you reveal that you haven't actually done research. Mutations typically change information rather than remove (or add to) it -- unless you are using a different definition of "information" than a typical geneticist would use when discussing "information" as it relates to genetics; if so, present your definition so that it can be evaluated. Mutations can also add information through gene duplication; while gene duplication itself merely replicates existing "information" such that the same information occurs twice where it once occured only once, further point mutations on one of the duplicates will result in an increase in the total information in the genome. See here, and at least try to explain why the information contained therein is false rather than dismissing it outright without bothering to address a single detail (as so many creationists often do when dealing with information from Talk Origins).
And information isn't just duplication of the same DNA, that is similar to make a copy of the same letter on the copy machine - no new information, just the same information twice.
True, but when a gene is duplicated changes to one of the copies do result in new information, because the result is a net increase in the total information.
Tests have never been able to show where information is added - which leads to dramatically different species/kinds.
This claim is just false. Have you actually done any research?
Not sure what you mean by the mechanism that the designer used,
You assert that a "designer" is responsible for patterns of similarity in genetics across species through "code reuse". This implies that a "designer" of some sort exists and that this "designer" used some mechanism to put DNA in place across individual species. State the mechanism that this "designer" used.
I fail to understand why my request could be considered puzzling.
but you raise an important other point that evolution cannot explain. We all agree DNA exists and contains the blueprint for how any living organism grows and is fashioned into what it becomes. DNA by itself does nothing, it is the blueprint, you still need the "computer" if you will that interprets that information and causes certain chemical interactions to occur to produce the expected result.
Are you referring to RNA and ribosomes?
Where DID that computer come from? Kind of like a chicken and the egg problem for evolution, but not a problem for ID.
You are incorrect. The theory of evolution addresses the emergence of extant biodiversity from common ancestry. The process requires extant life at the "beginning" to occur. How that original life came to exist, while a subject of interest to biologists, is not itself a part of the theory of evolution and never has been.
God created the computer and the DNA.
Interesting. Major ID proponents, like Michael Behe, have claimed that "Intelligent Design" need not involve a "God", and that the "designer" need not be a deity or supernatural in origin. This claim has even
When you look at the DNA for a single-celled organism compared to that of a fish, you will find a fish has a lot more DNA information not present in the single-celled organism.
An amoeba has more DNA (by molecular count) than homo sapiens. It would appear as though you have not thoroughly researched the subject on which you speak.
As to the remarkable coincidence, this article covers this quite nicely and thoroughly. A very short summary would be that having similar DNA simply means a designer uses the same building blocks for similar things, but does not definitely indicate that one species evolved from another.
Please explain the mechanism by which the "designer" implemented the alleged "design".
No, the problem is definitely console-itis.
Deus Ex started life as a PC game and was then ported to a console (the PS2). To make the game more accessible to the console interface of a gamepad, certain system elements (such as the inventory system) were streamlined down to fit the platform. The elements had worked fine on the PC, but they were hard to manage without the keyboard and mouse interface not standard on game consoles. Additionally, some of the larger levels were broken up into smaller areas to fit the memory limitations of the system.
Deus Ex was a PC game that was ported to consoles and adjusted to fit the new platform during the porting process. That is the appropriate means of handling a port.
Deus Ex: Invisible War was designed as a console game from the beginning. The developers admitted as much during production; they claimed that it would first be built for the XBox. As a result, the interface was built for a console gamer using a gamepad rather than a keyboard and mouse. The levels were designed to fit the memory of the specific game console for which it was built. The developers claimed that the PC version would feature larger contiguous areas where the XBox version was broken up into smaller areas for memory limitations. They lied. Instead, they didn't adjust the game for the PC at all. They maintained the tiny, console-designed levels even on the PC version. They did not adjust the interface at all. Version 1.0 of the game barely involved the mouse in the inventory and biomod management screens, a terrible design element so unpopular that it had to be fixed in a subsequent patch.
Without even getting into the gameplay elements "streamlined" down, obviously for the purpose of making the game more "accessible" to console gamers not used to as much intense inventory and character development management, Deus Ex: Invisible War was a console game that was dumped, not ported, onto the PC without any consideration for the differences in the two platforms. This is a perfect example of how not to "port" a game.
Can you hit a target 10ft in front of you? I know my gf can't and she has a much more steady arm than someone 3x her age. Hitting a target isn't as easy as they make it look in the movies. They make it look easy to pump an entire clip into someone from 20ft away or more, which is very unrealistic.
I routinely shoot at a human-silhouette target from a minimum of 21 feet (7 yards), usually farther back. I'm not a marksman by any means, but I rarely, if ever, have a session where any shots stray from the target area and most of my shots are very near the center of the target. My headshot attempts aren't always as impressive, but I'd still say that I maintain at least 80% accuracy per target when taking shots there (and I only shoot there because I'm working to tighten my grouping).
Put your avg person under duress and they couldn't hit a horse from 10ft.
Please justify this assertion. If I can hit the representation of the center of mass of a human-shaped target at 21 feet when calm, I don't see why I couldn't hit a similar target at less than half the distance even if under duress. Yes, my hands may not be as steady, but I don't think that I'll be trembling that much.
It is pointless to own a gun if you aren't going to practice using it.
This is true. This is why people who own firearms shold know how to properly aim and shoot them, and also how to safely store them and how to maintain them.
Also attempting violence on an intruder is silliness as well. If she misses she's dead.
I think that I understand now. Your girlfriend must have been trying to hit a 10ft-distance target with a smoothbore single-shot musket. You might want to look into a more up-to-date firearm. Contemporary firearms can fire off more than one shot in succession, and they have rifled barrels which greatly improve accuracy through a science called "ballistics" which helps prevent the fired projectile from tumbling while travelling down the barrel.
Why not a realistic solution: give the intruder what they want, don't instigate violence, and call the police.
So you are trusting that giving an intruder what the intruder wants will invariably result in the intruder leaving without inflicting personal harm? Moreover, why should I give the intruder what the intruder wants? What, exactly, entitles a home invader to my personal property?
Why do you even mention a baseball bat?
Maybe he/she mentioned it because any defense is better than no defense.
You state it as if it's the only other option.
Of course it isn't. You could try using a knife, or pepper spray. Or any large blunt object, or any kind of easily-weilded sharp object.
There is the non-violent option.
You mean snivelling like a coward, leaving yourself at the mercy of someone who has already shown that he or she does not repsect your property or your privacy, but desperately hoping that they will still somehow respect your personal safety?
As soon as you pose a violent threat, then you are a legitimate target.
This is false. A homeowner (or renter, or apartment dweller) is never a "legitimate target" against a criminal home invader. The home invader makes him or herself a "legitimate target" through the act of home invasion.