I'm sure that's the kind of thing Microsoft loves to hear after spending the lifetime of the Xbox being absolutely rabid about games not being allowed to patch themselves. MS has put a lot of effort into trying to keep their console running finished products, not hack jobs that aren't playable until three patches down the road, and now Valve wants to foist bug fests upon console players.
And given a major, major bug that affected Thief: Deadly Shadows on both the PC and the X-Box for which X-Box users are hosed, that's not exactly a bad idea.
I can't really blame Cedega, though. I'm using it with MagicEngine, a commercial TurboGrafix-16/PC-Engine emulator (for which I do have a legal license), and even with the 'new' CD-ROM code there are still issues with CD access. It needs direct device access under any circumstances, because PC-Engine CD-ROMs are not ISO9660 format, so the data has to be read directly. I'm not sure what the Cedega team could do for it, especially since the software is so obscure as it is.
Even then, there's still the "no sound from bttv". I suspect both of these are local configuration issues, however, because I can't get reports of anyone else having the same problem with 2.6.12 or 2.6.13.
...When 2.6.12 came along it broke my IDE-SCSI setup (I use one quirky piece of software that REFUSES to work unless my DVD-ROM drive is accessable as a SCSI device, and there's no alternatives available for it) and I couldn't make it work again. In addition, I completely lost audio from my bttv device and couldn't restore it.
Have you seriously considered finding a bulk mailer and "savagely beating them or killing them"?
After a "Christian Minister" email spammer forge-subscribed me to all kinds of gay porn lists (amongst other things), resulting in a massive flood of junk in my inbox, yes, I had vivid fantasies involving myself, a baseball bat and Clark Mankin's skull.
Clark Mankin is a criminal spammer scumbag who deserves to die.
I recall a "Car Wars" inspired game in the mid-late 1990s set in an "alternate universe" 1970s with very simple non-textured, low-poly models.
I thought that the low-frills graphics were a consequence of the technology of the time; hard to have a good driving game (with vehicular combat) framerate if you throw in too many graphical bells and whistles.
(How could you have graphical bells and whistles anyway?)
IIRC the game was also tied, storywise, to the Vigilante 8 games (which I first thought just had a coincidentally similar theme).
I jammed the door that's supposed to close after you exit the room with the professor (to keep you from killing him after you get the weapon) open with a crate, and return with the weapon to kill him, only he magically gained 9999 hitpoints as soon as he pushed the button, so I stabbed him in the head for about half-an-hour until he diead, at wich point I completed two opposing missions and broke the game.
How does this break the game? The only thing that I know it to do is trigger a dialogue from the Order leader that should otherwise never occur (making me wonder why the line was recorded in the first place). How did it prevent you from progressing further?
Age of Empires (a Microsoft-produced title) requires full Admin rights to run. It's not just third-party developers doing a lousy job of coding within acceptable security standards.
All this time I wondered how so many people could be so stupid as to believe the mountains of bullshit pushed by the creationist movement, and this explains it!
As information regarding the field of biology -- specifically in the study of evolution -- increases, a balance must be made. As a result, the increase of information in biology causes a reaction of an equal increase of negative information with respect to the creationist movement. The more biologists figure out and the more knowledgable experts become, the dumber and more gullible the general populace must become to balance the information flow out.
Well in Australia it has been ruled by the courts or the consumer commission) that a region locked DVD player is bad and region unlocked players are compleatly legal.
I thought that all DVD players had to be region-free, or at least that manufacturers had to provide a region-free solution for any consumer who requested it.
I know that the ruling was what enabled me (in the US) to region-hack my Panasonic player; I got my hands on a copy of the 'unlock' disc that Panasonic was legally obligated to make available for Australian consumers.
This guy who is scamming poor people out of money is doing god's work.
He's conning criminals, not scamming poor people. 419 scammers are rarely, if ever, "poor". Not if they can afford regular Internet access (or Internet access at all) in countries where people are often lucky to have electricity.
I'm hoping maybe this guy can expand his business, maybe going out on the streets at night and robbing people at gunpoint who approach him that he might think are suspicious
If I find a bunch of rocks and I come up with a theory that they formed part of a building, that theres evidence of intelligent design, can that theory be falsified?
Depends on the basis for your speculation. Why would you assume them to be part of a building?
You can look for tool-marks on the rocks, where did they come from, are they from here or would they have to have been transported here. Etc.
Wouldn't really be scientific theory, I think. I'm not that well-versed in archeaology though, so perhaps someone with more experience could point it out.
Perhaps there are genetic engineering 'tool-marks' that may be identifiable. If that were possible, would it be wrong to look for them?
And how would you recognize them? With building parts we have have a basis for comparison; we can find rocks that we can easily determine were likely not touched by human hands, and we can reproduce markings on them to determine the kinds of markings easily made by human hands. What would we seek in human genes that would show signs of "tools" working on them? Be specific. If we don't have a sound basis of comparison for "designed" genome parts versus "undesigned" genome parts, then we don't really have any way of drawing meaningful conclusions regarding design.
What if you found things in the human genome that couldn't be explained by natural processes.
How would we identify such things? What would be our basis for comparison?
Is that even possible?
Possibly, but unless we can discern "designed" genetics from "undesigned" genetics, we're not going to get anywhere.
Is it wrong to ask?
No, but we can't get answers unless we have a sound basis for comparison.
"Intelligent Design" may be a quasi-religious political agenda, but "intelligent design" is surely a valid question.
It may be a valid question, but we can't even make meaningful speculation unless we have a means for discerning between "designed" and "undesigned". Many creationidiots who claim we can see "elements of design" in the universe or in life itself are totally unable to explain what we should expect to see in undesigned elements in the universe; if we don't know what "undesigned" things look like versues "designed", then it's not possible to discern "design" in the universe.
Thank you for your analysis of theory vs. law. It's totally and completely wrong, but ID-pushers never let facts get in the way of their illogic.
Laws are no more "certain" than theories. Laws are simply a different kind of explanation; laws can just as easily be proven false. In fact, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is known to be false. There is, in fact, a "theory" behind gravity which attempts to explain why the "Law" (as yet fully unstated because we still don't know all about it) exists in the first place.
Have you ever seen a puddle of water. Have you ever noticed that the water in the puddle was designed to fit the puddle completely and totally? There are no empty spaces there; where there's indendation, there's water until it starts to dry out, and when it dries out it does so from the top down.
Actually, no. Scientific theories are required to be falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable. Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil or a transposon in whales and cows or not hippos (or humans and gorillas but not chimps) and you'll bring common descent theory crashing down.
ID is not falsifiable, and that is why it is not science.
Pardon my ignorace, but I thought the principle of 'irreducible complexity' was just an appeal to ignorance.
It's more than just that fallacy. Behe also imposes artifical limits on evolution in order to have his way. He claims that the flagellum couldn't have evolved despite counterexamples. One of the biggest problems with IC is that Behe ignores the fact that new structures don't have to come about purely through addition.
Take an organism with part A. Mutations lead to an addition of part B, which works with A for greater efficiency. Later mutations bring about C, D and E sequentially so you have an organism with ABCDE-built structure that works quite nicely. But then, more mutations make A and B go away, and the organism is even more efficient. Except that C, D and E couldn't have come into place initially without the presence of A and B.
By Behe's logic, that's irreducable complexity, because you couldn't have just added parts to get the final result.
I'm sure that quite a few here (certainly not all) would love to bash SPEWS, which essentially allows ISPs to do the same thing, just on a much larger scale.
Odd that it's okay for a university to block unwanted email messages, but a lot of people don't think it's okay for an ISP to block email messages.
Of course none of these flaws prove creation, but they leave enough holes that I won't sign onto the theory.
Perhaps you could name some of these "flaws"? Oftentimes many "flaws" that creationists identify in the theory of evolution are actually products of creationist misunderstanding or -- in many cases -- their outright dishonesty.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that's the kind of thing Microsoft loves to hear after spending the lifetime of the Xbox being absolutely rabid about games not being allowed to patch themselves. MS has put a lot of effort into trying to keep their console running finished products, not hack jobs that aren't playable until three patches down the road, and now Valve wants to foist bug fests upon console players.
And given a major, major bug that affected Thief: Deadly Shadows on both the PC and the X-Box for which X-Box users are hosed, that's not exactly a bad idea.
I can't really blame Cedega, though. I'm using it with MagicEngine, a commercial TurboGrafix-16/PC-Engine emulator (for which I do have a legal license), and even with the 'new' CD-ROM code there are still issues with CD access. It needs direct device access under any circumstances, because PC-Engine CD-ROMs are not ISO9660 format, so the data has to be read directly. I'm not sure what the Cedega team could do for it, especially since the software is so obscure as it is.
Even then, there's still the "no sound from bttv". I suspect both of these are local configuration issues, however, because I can't get reports of anyone else having the same problem with 2.6.12 or 2.6.13.
Sadly, this is a Windows app used through Cedega. I suspect that updates to accomidate a setup that very few users have is not forthcoming.
...When 2.6.12 came along it broke my IDE-SCSI setup (I use one quirky piece of software that REFUSES to work unless my DVD-ROM drive is accessable as a SCSI device, and there's no alternatives available for it) and I couldn't make it work again. In addition, I completely lost audio from my bttv device and couldn't restore it.
I'm a bit hesitant to switch from 2.6.11.
And what will you do when your robot wife has YOU replaced with a young robot husband?
They aren't laws. They are observations. They don't tell us WHY things happen they way they do, they merely model the interactions.
That's exactly what scientific laws are supposed to do. Theories address the WHY aspect.
He was killed because he was doing business with sociopaths.
How is that different from other spammers?
Have you seriously considered finding a bulk mailer and "savagely beating them or killing them"?
After a "Christian Minister" email spammer forge-subscribed me to all kinds of gay porn lists (amongst other things), resulting in a massive flood of junk in my inbox, yes, I had vivid fantasies involving myself, a baseball bat and Clark Mankin's skull.
Clark Mankin is a criminal spammer scumbag who deserves to die.
2. run on legal, off-the-shelf hardware
How is XBMC illegal?
I recall a "Car Wars" inspired game in the mid-late 1990s set in an "alternate universe" 1970s with very simple non-textured, low-poly models.
I thought that the low-frills graphics were a consequence of the technology of the time; hard to have a good driving game (with vehicular combat) framerate if you throw in too many graphical bells and whistles.
(How could you have graphical bells and whistles anyway?)
IIRC the game was also tied, storywise, to the Vigilante 8 games (which I first thought just had a coincidentally similar theme).
I jammed the door that's supposed to close after you exit the room with the professor (to keep you from killing him after you get the weapon) open with a crate, and return with the weapon to kill him, only he magically gained 9999 hitpoints as soon as he pushed the button, so I stabbed him in the head for about half-an-hour until he diead, at wich point I completed two opposing missions and broke the game.
How does this break the game? The only thing that I know it to do is trigger a dialogue from the Order leader that should otherwise never occur (making me wonder why the line was recorded in the first place). How did it prevent you from progressing further?
Age of Empires (a Microsoft-produced title) requires full Admin rights to run. It's not just third-party developers doing a lousy job of coding within acceptable security standards.
All this time I wondered how so many people could be so stupid as to believe the mountains of bullshit pushed by the creationist movement, and this explains it!
As information regarding the field of biology -- specifically in the study of evolution -- increases, a balance must be made. As a result, the increase of information in biology causes a reaction of an equal increase of negative information with respect to the creationist movement. The more biologists figure out and the more knowledgable experts become, the dumber and more gullible the general populace must become to balance the information flow out.
Well in Australia it has been ruled by the courts or the consumer commission) that a region locked DVD player is bad and region unlocked players are compleatly legal.
I thought that all DVD players had to be region-free, or at least that manufacturers had to provide a region-free solution for any consumer who requested it.
I know that the ruling was what enabled me (in the US) to region-hack my Panasonic player; I got my hands on a copy of the 'unlock' disc that Panasonic was legally obligated to make available for Australian consumers.
You can't blame them if it turns out to be the case. You see, the thing about grit is, it's black...
This guy who is scamming poor people out of money is doing god's work.
He's conning criminals, not scamming poor people. 419 scammers are rarely, if ever, "poor". Not if they can afford regular Internet access (or Internet access at all) in countries where people are often lucky to have electricity.
I'm hoping maybe this guy can expand his business, maybe going out on the streets at night and robbing people at gunpoint who approach him that he might think are suspicious
Wow! What a totally invalid analogy!
If I find a bunch of rocks and I come up with a theory that they formed part of a building, that theres evidence of intelligent design, can that theory be falsified?
Depends on the basis for your speculation. Why would you assume them to be part of a building?
You can look for tool-marks on the rocks, where did they come from, are they from here or would they have to have been transported here. Etc.
Wouldn't really be scientific theory, I think. I'm not that well-versed in archeaology though, so perhaps someone with more experience could point it out.
Perhaps there are genetic engineering 'tool-marks' that may be identifiable. If that were possible, would it be wrong to look for them?
And how would you recognize them? With building parts we have have a basis for comparison; we can find rocks that we can easily determine were likely not touched by human hands, and we can reproduce markings on them to determine the kinds of markings easily made by human hands. What would we seek in human genes that would show signs of "tools" working on them? Be specific. If we don't have a sound basis of comparison for "designed" genome parts versus "undesigned" genome parts, then we don't really have any way of drawing meaningful conclusions regarding design.
What if you found things in the human genome that couldn't be explained by natural processes.
How would we identify such things? What would be our basis for comparison?
Is that even possible?
Possibly, but unless we can discern "designed" genetics from "undesigned" genetics, we're not going to get anywhere.
Is it wrong to ask?
No, but we can't get answers unless we have a sound basis for comparison.
"Intelligent Design" may be a quasi-religious political agenda, but "intelligent design" is surely a valid question.
It may be a valid question, but we can't even make meaningful speculation unless we have a means for discerning between "designed" and "undesigned". Many creationidiots who claim we can see "elements of design" in the universe or in life itself are totally unable to explain what we should expect to see in undesigned elements in the universe; if we don't know what "undesigned" things look like versues "designed", then it's not possible to discern "design" in the universe.
Thank you for your analysis of theory vs. law. It's totally and completely wrong, but ID-pushers never let facts get in the way of their illogic.
Laws are no more "certain" than theories. Laws are simply a different kind of explanation; laws can just as easily be proven false. In fact, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is known to be false. There is, in fact, a "theory" behind gravity which attempts to explain why the "Law" (as yet fully unstated because we still don't know all about it) exists in the first place.
Have you ever seen a puddle of water. Have you ever noticed that the water in the puddle was designed to fit the puddle completely and totally? There are no empty spaces there; where there's indendation, there's water until it starts to dry out, and when it dries out it does so from the top down.
Clear proof that water puddles are designed!
Hence it is a theory.
Actually, no. Scientific theories are required to be falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable. Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil or a transposon in whales and cows or not hippos (or humans and gorillas but not chimps) and you'll bring common descent theory crashing down.
ID is not falsifiable, and that is why it is not science.
Pardon my ignorace, but I thought the principle of 'irreducible complexity' was just an appeal to ignorance.
It's more than just that fallacy. Behe also imposes artifical limits on evolution in order to have his way. He claims that the flagellum couldn't have evolved despite counterexamples. One of the biggest problems with IC is that Behe ignores the fact that new structures don't have to come about purely through addition.
Take an organism with part A. Mutations lead to an addition of part B, which works with A for greater efficiency. Later mutations bring about C, D and E sequentially so you have an organism with ABCDE-built structure that works quite nicely. But then, more mutations make A and B go away, and the organism is even more efficient. Except that C, D and E couldn't have come into place initially without the presence of A and B.
By Behe's logic, that's irreducable complexity, because you couldn't have just added parts to get the final result.
I'm sure that quite a few here (certainly not all) would love to bash SPEWS, which essentially allows ISPs to do the same thing, just on a much larger scale.
Odd that it's okay for a university to block unwanted email messages, but a lot of people don't think it's okay for an ISP to block email messages.
Of course none of these flaws prove creation, but they leave enough holes that I won't sign onto the theory.
Perhaps you could name some of these "flaws"? Oftentimes many "flaws" that creationists identify in the theory of evolution are actually products of creationist misunderstanding or -- in many cases -- their outright dishonesty.
a being infinitely superior to you and I created these things
Unless you can provide evidence for this assertion, it's nothing but hot air.