On the other side of the coin, I can get a permit for a KKK rally in Central Park. In France that wouldn't be allowed under the hate speech laws. No doubt some people will defend those laws -- but I'd rather have the true freedom to allow people to say whatever they want. Even with the KKK and the neo-Nazi's free to spew their garbage we are still light-years ahead of Europe in race relations. What does that say about American culture?
But you couldn't have a nude rally without beign arrested for public indecency so it's just a different idea of what people consider vulgar.
Come on people, stop evading the question. It is a valid one, can someone of color ever really be French? You people don't want to admit it but the practice of multiculturalism is failing miserably. You can't just take people of different cultures, religions, and languages, toss them together and expect them to live peacefully. It won't happen.
These people that are rioting need to be living in their own lands, with their own cultures, and their own people.
People who remain devout to a certain visible religion can never be french because french culture includes a very secular view that is not compatible with being a devout Muslim/Protestant/Catholic. Although the french accept devout catholics because france is catholic previously, devout peoples of other religions by their very nature are very non-french. In the same way a devout muslim aren't really part of american culture, and a devout protastant stands out a bit in canada. Liberal European/Americans/Canadians cultures are "tolerant" of minorities but they must adopt a similiar culture. They have to white wash their behavior a bit, they have to liberalize and becoem tolerant, and they have to accept a few cultural norms. I don't think there is anythign wrogn with this. When someone moves to a new country they must adopt the cutoms.
Asians never seem to need assistance from the "state" nor do Eastern European immigrants. They adopt and are often the most successful members of society.
East asians you mean. Arab immigranst are atcually one of the ethnicities most heavily on the dole in Canada and they are technically asain. East Asians and Indians have too much pride and will work hard to stay off the Dole.
I wonder if we will eventually eliminate racism by eliminating race just by interbreeding. I know a lot of interracial couples, but then again the circles I exist in are very liberal. The pessimist in me fears there will always be a class, probably a ruling class, that values the "purity" of its genetics.
The thing is, liberal values are very caucasian. So you in fact are racists too. You exclude conservative people which tend to be minorities (except in the states). In Europe and Canada, the causcasians tend to be very liberal while the new minorities are very conservative and religious. This leads to the same type of tension that liberals and conservative have elsewhere, except it is also across race and class lines now.
This is a somewhat subjective issure. The fact of the matter is that the people in question are africans (or north Africans, if you prefer), and the parent was only trying to say that they are treated as second citizens in France. From what I understand this is the case. You'll find a similar attitude in Europe against Turks. I'll never understand why so many people have a problem with poor immigrants moving into their country, but it is an attitude you will find anywhere in the world, and it is usually based on some sort of racial prejudice against the people in question. People say that they're afraid of loosing jobs, but if they really wanted the kind of jobs the immigrants work, they wouldn't be in danger of loosing them. The truth is that people just don't like to see poor immigrants around.
The problem is, this ethnicity never becomes "FRENCH" they will always be muslim which is pretty counter to what being french is. Being french is being sort of a lapsed catholic who is very secular. In the very same way that Americans treat immigrants liek second class citizens because they are different. Canada does much the same ot a lesser degree but unless they conform to what we expect people to be they will be treated poorly.
I prefer these sorts of games running at 30 fps. It's artistically more pleasing on the eyes. This is the same reason that a cinematic film running at 24 fps is artistically more pleasing on the eyes than a digital camera home movie running at 60 fps.
I'd say that 60 fps is mostly only useful for fast-response twitch sorts of games, like racing games, shooters, and the like. Other games, like RPGs, adventure games, etc, would look perfectly fine at 30.
If I had mod points I'd mod you -1 WTF.
Frame rate have nothing to do with artistry. Frames rares are required to be high in anygame where things move a lot. 30 is ok. 60 is smoother. There is a difference.
As an atheist, I hold no quam. So many good things have come as a result of level headed religious people that I could never damn an entire religion based on it's zealots.
As a cthuluist I just pray that I am last to be devoured by the eldric horror in the ocean.
Except evolution. In my experience proponents of evolution are extremely closed-minded when any evidence or positions are put forward that don't agree 100% with their position. I've seen the most otherwise pleasant and mild-mannered science teacher become quite hostile when challenged on this issue. I'm sure a lot of it can be put down to being sick of uneducated creationists, but to them their faith has become as dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion.
Actually most adults get very upset when you challenge them on anything. It's simply they assume they are right. So your agrument is a bit dumb.
Today, the main selection pressure is birth control. This selects for humans with these traits:
* loves babies and kids
* can't follow condom instructions
* too horny to think
* highly religious (no abortion or birth control)
* does not consider economic consequences
* physically attractive
* charming
* very unpredictable ovulation
* likely to produce twins
Someday, we will return to the historical norm of women almost always being pregnant.
The true mark of success isnt' simply how many kids you have, it's how well their children survive and also have kids.
So, if the two theories are being taught side by side, i.e. evolution a well of critiques of the theory, are being taught, where exactly is the problem? What I'm getting at is if you teach in scvhools not just the dominantn theory itself, but alternate viewpoints - aren't you explicitly promoting skills in analaysis and comparison? From my reading, the decision wasn't that only ID could be taught, or that evolution couldn't be taught, but that it was ok to present multiple viewpoints and critiques.
I think your an idiot. This is a valid veiw point. You most likely think otherwise. I would like this opportunity to tell your kids your an idiot for 12 years of their life while your away and give various mad eup examples of why your an idiot. About 60% of yoru children (given you have enough children to have 60% of) will beleive me because I am an authority figrue and they figure what I tell them must be true. After 12 years those children will firmy beleive you are an idiot regaurdless of what you do. If it happen you are nto an idiot it simply means thos 60% didnt' have enough analytical muscle to tell I was lying.
It's a farce, it's not a anothe ridea to analyse, tell me how many children do you honestly think does any serious research into the ideas presented to them and how many of them actualyl think about it at all? What this does is create a whole generation of kids who now are muche asier to convince that fundementalist christinity is the correct form of christinity and not a single thing more or less then this.
Then with "facts" explain how everything came in to being.
Just to save some time please go in to detail of what it was like before the "big bang". What was around before that
and before that, and before that and before that.... you get the idea. No beginning is a difficult "idea" for science to explain.
Now having said that I have no problem at all with evolution. It sounds very reasonable to me. However I also have no problem telling children that some people believe that everything wasn't random in the universe, and as such they believe that a greater power has played a part in it all.
This shouldn't be that big of a deal, at most a small conversation in a class, but I have a feeling it is going to turn in to a big deal. The far left are on an agenda to wipe out any mention of God at all in our society. Well to be specific Christianity, and the "radical" right seem hell bent in the other direction. There is a middle ground on this issue, as with most issues.
It's easy, Tell your children God works in mysterious ways. Athiests say "random" theists say "divine will". Because who are we to guess about gods methods.
Intelligent design seems to contradict the idea of taking the creationist story literally. The idea that the world was created in 7 days is not Intelligent Design. Intelligent design believes that it is more a story, like you yourself mentioned, and could have happened over thousands of years through the process of evolution.
No. They assume that while you can show specieis currenly evolve and speciate ect.. that they were actualyl created in another fashion and that the evidence is in the complexity of some biological systems. However it doesn't hold up to even faint scrutiny.
I at first had a lot of sympathy for this argument, but over the years I've come to reconsider my position on the question: who should have authority to define what science is? "Scientists" might seem a logical answer, but virtually all scientists I've talked to (dozens of them) can't really explain the term means. At best, they talk about the scientific method, but a) that term is somewhat fuzzy, too, and b) science != scientific method.
I majored in philosophy, so naturally I thought philosophy could tell me what science is. And it does. In hundreds of different ways. Probably the most famous definition is Karl Popper's, which roughly states that science is the set of assertions that is predictive and falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified despite strong attempts to do so. There are a couple problems with this theory, though, and the theory spawned a huge amount of controversial literature. To this day, philosophers debate what "science" is.
Control of education is something that should squarely fall under the control of politicians and the political process. Public schools can compel students to study history, math, etc. despite the parents' wishes because the curriculums are determined via representative democracy. In other words, the parents collectively and indirectly choose what to teach their kids in public school.
I'm not convinced that scientists should have control over our public schools' science curriculum any more than I'm convinced that priests should set the curriculum for (comparative) religion classes. Public education is so crucial to our society that it should be set by the people or their duly elected representatives, not some unelected technocracy. Sure, the technocracy can educate the representatives. In this case, though, the very uncertainty of the term in question makes an even stronger case for politicians, rather than technocrats, defining "science" for public schools.
Spoken liek a true post-modernist. Unfortunately post-modernism is a passing fade of the intellectually bored. Science is collecting and interprettign data utilizing a specific method. Nothign more, nothing less. It's prone to all the human foilables that other branches of humaity have, liek nepotism, politics ect.. But it doesn't invalidate the method or what it has achived.
Well, I don't know if destroying the foundations of biology will really "uproot the economy", since the only useful application of biological science is medicine. As long as there are still physicists (to teach engineers to build stable structures) and chemists (to tech drug manufacturers how to run meth labs), the state will probably continue to see economic prosperity. Maybe lifespans will be reduced slightly as people rely more on homeopathic medicine and exorcism, but at least this will prevent any antibiotic-resistant bacteria from evolving in Kansas.
The only thing is they will now require an additional year of university for all kansas high school students to Unlearn the garbage taught to them. Most of the time this only take 1 month to clear out the garbage from other states high school programs btu kansas willr equire a full year.
When Newton posited gravity, some people claimed that he wasn't doing science because he invoked medieval-sounding "occult powers", and hence wasn't giving properly naturalistic explanations. People who make up definitions of science and then try to rule out rival theories because they are not "scientific" are usually up to no good. Part of what is at stake in scientific controversy is what the proper definition of science is. I'm no fan of what the Kansas Board is doing, but your concern about the sanctity of the "definition of science" is misplaced.
You actually do sound very very much liek a fan of what they are doing. ID isn't a rival theory. It's like saying David Schimmer is a Rival of James Toney for the WBA heavy weight championship, just because david famous must mean he's a equaly valid alternate champion right? That's the logic being used that is why American Science marks this as the jumping of the shark and only worse things are to come.
31 is the average age of the gamer market. You are spot on.
I never played the dreamcast, but I'm of the Playstation generation... and I like the X-Box because of the immersive quality of its games.
I'm a toking gamer - so there's a huge difference between walking into an empty room and skulking into a brilliantly shaded, lit room with curtains wafting in a breeze that I can hide behind in Splinter Cell. Immersion is important to me. X-Box games feel more complete.
By contrast, the PS2 has an awesome variety of games; the library is a compelling reason to own one. Among my friends, I'm the X-Box guy; they all have PS2s, so it works out well.
My experience as a gamer revolves around immersion and variety. The X-Box suffers from a lack of variety; the PS2 is not immersive. The PS2 is akin to watching VHS; whereas the X-Box is more of a DVD experience.
If the PS3 can promise immersion and variety, then I'm there. It'll be an easy call. I'm already going to get an XBox 360 because PS3 missed the boat by not having an online service.
Immersion != Graphics.
Immersion is how much time they spent makign things seem real. MGS3/Half Life 2 is as close to total immersion as I have every played, Halo 3 gives me no more then Quake 2.
It's the level of details in the enviroment, the way things react to you. In this respect Xbox games fail miserably since most of them are rushed to market by the publisher. they have pretty games but immersion isn't about just beign pretty. It's about small things like when you shoot a box off a table it falls. when you shoot a behive off a tree it falls and does soemthign ect.. That much mroe emmersive then any type of graphics.
It's easy to say the Xbox failed due to the fact that it lost money. However, it's hard to find a 10-year old nowadays who doesn't know Halo. They might also know GTA, but Halo has much less controversy surrounding it and is more likely to hit that critical pre-teen bracket where product preference is formed. Plus most of those 10 year olds can't play GTA anyways. Think about it from a marketing standpoint. Perhaps PS2 sold more systems and games, but which system has the movies being made about it's game characters? Even Nintendo's attempts to capitalize on Mario failed. Doom and Halo both are available for the Xbox exclusively and are (going to be) major motion pictures, even though Sony owns it's own motion picture studio. So even though Microsoft may have lost the financial fight, they probably at least are neck and neck, if not ahead, in the product recognition race. And that's what Microsoft does best - market to the masses. That's why Windows is more prevalent than CP/M, why Office is more prevalent that Lotus, and why the Xbox is helping them win over the next generation of geeks to walk the world.
Children don't run this market, Adult Males aged 18-34 do. So it doesn't Matter if GTa is controversial. That actually helps it.
For anyoen considering buying a 360, remember Mircosofts Rule of 3's. Verion 1 will fail spectacularly (Xbox and a few billion down the tubes), the next version will fail in a less sucktacular way (360 will be a moderate success, firmly #2 and lose microsoft hundreds of millions), and the Xbox 3 will be a resounding success finally making MS some money. I predict the third product will come out in 3 years, making the 360 one of the shortest console lifespans since the saturn.
EB called me 3 weeks ago, told me I was in the first shipment. All good.
Today, get a call stating that I am number 25 of the first shipment and they're only recieving 18 units. They won't guarantee me a 360 before christmas either. (To their credit they said it was very likely, but they hesitated to use the word guarantee.)
Crappy. Good work MS. Bah Humbug.
Your not going to miss much. It won't be till long after christmas before any decent games come out. Problably not till mid summer till HAlo 3 comes out and so far Halo is the only reason to have a Xbox. Maybe fable if you like that whole Morrowind on a console idea.
Microsoft is bleeding for a good while because they choose to, because they believe it will net them greater profits long-term. Bleeding more isn't going to hurt them long term, unless everyone buys an XBox 360 and uses them as overpriced paperweights.
I'd say just don't buy this if they are going to toy with the buyers like this.
I wish it were that easy. You can similarly "just not use Windows", but that's not really a choice anymore either. XBox 360 is the only console that has a remotely cohesive online strategy. It has a lot of great game makers signed on, and for the hard-core gamer, outside of RPG's and weird games that Japanese obsess over, it has a better lineup of games than the PS3.
Actually if you really want to hurt them. Don't buy any. they may lose X dollars if you buy one, but they lose X dollars + your purchase price if you dont' buy any. If you buy one they say there are Y units out there and this may sway game makers to start producing more games for them. They'd lose more money long run if you don't but any at all because it completely sucks up the R&D money without any spin games to play to count it as anything but a dismal failure.
To give it credit where the credit is due, Civilization 3 and now 4 made victory through peace much more possible. In Civilization 4 there are 3 seperate peaceful victory possibilities, winning by generating a huge amount of "culture" (points you get by creating wonders and promoting things like art), building the space ship and getting to Alpha Centauri or being elected head of the United Nations. In comparison there are only 2 military victory conditions, dominating the map or wiping out everyone else. The peaceful victory conditions are completely viable, and it's quite interesting to play with these goals in mind.
I hate that. In the middle of my Genocide of all other living things I keep accidentally culturally winning. (CIV3, MOO 1, Moo 2, Moo 3). Why can't you all die in peace.
You know, i think it's funny that you hammer this guy for his ignorance, whe you have accepted this
"As for the weather, it isnt' a sign of the appocalypse, it's a sign of global warming"
as fact.
You sir, have simply replaced his religion with yours.
And no, I don't reject global warming. I reject the idea (as stated in this otherwise lucid post) that the cause of our current WEATHER is global warming.
Fact: The earth is getting warm. Fact: Warmer weather is a result of havign more energy int he system. Energy power Hurricanes. This year we've had a marked increase in the severity of the hurricanes and weather patterns.
Contetnion: Is it us, or is it nature. Contention: Is it goign to get worse? Is it goign to result in an ice age.
There isn't a dispute that temperatures have been rising continuously for some time. No scientist no matter how much of a shill can deny the temperature world wide is rising. The only contention is what does it mean and why. I only pointed out that right wing people generally deny there is a problem and some deny the data all together. As well contention doesn't mean it couldn't be true. It only means that there are some (minority) voices who say that it may be other causes beside us. As well there isn't any contention that warmer weather brings more hurricanes and violent storms.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other side of the coin, I can get a permit for a KKK rally in Central Park. In France that wouldn't be allowed under the hate speech laws. No doubt some people will defend those laws -- but I'd rather have the true freedom to allow people to say whatever they want. Even with the KKK and the neo-Nazi's free to spew their garbage we are still light-years ahead of Europe in race relations. What does that say about American culture?
But you couldn't have a nude rally without beign arrested for public indecency so it's just a different idea of what people consider vulgar.
Come on people, stop evading the question. It is a valid one, can someone of color ever really be French? You people don't want to admit it but the practice of multiculturalism is failing miserably. You can't just take people of different cultures, religions, and languages, toss them together and expect them to live peacefully. It won't happen.
These people that are rioting need to be living in their own lands, with their own cultures, and their own people.
People who remain devout to a certain visible religion can never be french because french culture includes a very secular view that is not compatible with being a devout Muslim/Protestant/Catholic. Although the french accept devout catholics because france is catholic previously, devout peoples of other religions by their very nature are very non-french. In the same way a devout muslim aren't really part of american culture, and a devout protastant stands out a bit in canada. Liberal European/Americans/Canadians cultures are "tolerant" of minorities but they must adopt a similiar culture. They have to white wash their behavior a bit, they have to liberalize and becoem tolerant, and they have to accept a few cultural norms. I don't think there is anythign wrogn with this. When someone moves to a new country they must adopt the cutoms.
Asians never seem to need assistance from the "state" nor do Eastern European immigrants. They adopt and are often the most successful members of society.
East asians you mean. Arab immigranst are atcually one of the ethnicities most heavily on the dole in Canada and they are technically asain. East Asians and Indians have too much pride and will work hard to stay off the Dole.
I wonder if we will eventually eliminate racism by eliminating race just by interbreeding. I know a lot of interracial couples, but then again the circles I exist in are very liberal. The pessimist in me fears there will always be a class, probably a ruling class, that values the "purity" of its genetics.
The thing is, liberal values are very caucasian. So you in fact are racists too. You exclude conservative people which tend to be minorities (except in the states). In Europe and Canada, the causcasians tend to be very liberal while the new minorities are very conservative and religious. This leads to the same type of tension that liberals and conservative have elsewhere, except it is also across race and class lines now.
This is a somewhat subjective issure. The fact of the matter is that the people in question are africans (or north Africans, if you prefer), and the parent was only trying to say that they are treated as second citizens in France. From what I understand this is the case. You'll find a similar attitude in Europe against Turks. I'll never understand why so many people have a problem with poor immigrants moving into their country, but it is an attitude you will find anywhere in the world, and it is usually based on some sort of racial prejudice against the people in question. People say that they're afraid of loosing jobs, but if they really wanted the kind of jobs the immigrants work, they wouldn't be in danger of loosing them. The truth is that people just don't like to see poor immigrants around.
The problem is, this ethnicity never becomes "FRENCH" they will always be muslim which is pretty counter to what being french is. Being french is being sort of a lapsed catholic who is very secular. In the very same way that Americans treat immigrants liek second class citizens because they are different. Canada does much the same ot a lesser degree but unless they conform to what we expect people to be they will be treated poorly.
I prefer these sorts of games running at 30 fps. It's artistically more pleasing on the eyes. This is the same reason that a cinematic film running at 24 fps is artistically more pleasing on the eyes than a digital camera home movie running at 60 fps.
I'd say that 60 fps is mostly only useful for fast-response twitch sorts of games, like racing games, shooters, and the like. Other games, like RPGs, adventure games, etc, would look perfectly fine at 30.
If I had mod points I'd mod you -1 WTF.
Frame rate have nothing to do with artistry. Frames rares are required to be high in anygame where things move a lot. 30 is ok. 60 is smoother. There is a difference.
As an atheist, I hold no quam. So many good things have come as a result of level headed religious people that I could never damn an entire religion based on it's zealots.
As a cthuluist I just pray that I am last to be devoured by the eldric horror in the ocean.
Except evolution. In my experience proponents of evolution are extremely closed-minded when any evidence or positions are put forward that don't agree 100% with their position. I've seen the most otherwise pleasant and mild-mannered science teacher become quite hostile when challenged on this issue. I'm sure a lot of it can be put down to being sick of uneducated creationists, but to them their faith has become as dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion.
Actually most adults get very upset when you challenge them on anything. It's simply they assume they are right. So your agrument is a bit dumb.
Today, the main selection pressure is birth control. This selects for humans with these traits:
* loves babies and kids
* can't follow condom instructions
* too horny to think
* highly religious (no abortion or birth control)
* does not consider economic consequences
* physically attractive
* charming
* very unpredictable ovulation
* likely to produce twins
Someday, we will return to the historical norm of women almost always being pregnant.
The true mark of success isnt' simply how many kids you have, it's how well their children survive and also have kids.
So, if the two theories are being taught side by side, i.e. evolution a well of critiques of the theory, are being taught, where exactly is the problem? What I'm getting at is if you teach in scvhools not just the dominantn theory itself, but alternate viewpoints - aren't you explicitly promoting skills in analaysis and comparison? From my reading, the decision wasn't that only ID could be taught, or that evolution couldn't be taught, but that it was ok to present multiple viewpoints and critiques.
I think your an idiot. This is a valid veiw point. You most likely think otherwise. I would like this opportunity to tell your kids your an idiot for 12 years of their life while your away and give various mad eup examples of why your an idiot. About 60% of yoru children (given you have enough children to have 60% of) will beleive me because I am an authority figrue and they figure what I tell them must be true. After 12 years those children will firmy beleive you are an idiot regaurdless of what you do. If it happen you are nto an idiot it simply means thos 60% didnt' have enough analytical muscle to tell I was lying.
It's a farce, it's not a anothe ridea to analyse, tell me how many children do you honestly think does any serious research into the ideas presented to them and how many of them actualyl think about it at all? What this does is create a whole generation of kids who now are muche asier to convince that fundementalist christinity is the correct form of christinity and not a single thing more or less then this.
Not all neo-cons are religious nut heads.
Some of them are actually pure evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Then with "facts" explain how everything came in to being.
Just to save some time please go in to detail of what it was like before the "big bang". What was around before that
and before that, and before that and before that.... you get the idea. No beginning is a difficult "idea" for science to explain.
Now having said that I have no problem at all with evolution. It sounds very reasonable to me. However I also have no problem telling children that some people believe that everything wasn't random in the universe, and as such they believe that a greater power has played a part in it all.
This shouldn't be that big of a deal, at most a small conversation in a class, but I have a feeling it is going to turn in to a big deal. The far left are on an agenda to wipe out any mention of God at all in our society. Well to be specific Christianity, and the "radical" right seem hell bent in the other direction. There is a middle ground on this issue, as with most issues.
It's easy, Tell your children God works in mysterious ways. Athiests say "random" theists say "divine will". Because who are we to guess about gods methods.
Intelligent design seems to contradict the idea of taking the creationist story literally. The idea that the world was created in 7 days is not Intelligent Design. Intelligent design believes that it is more a story, like you yourself mentioned, and could have happened over thousands of years through the process of evolution.
No. They assume that while you can show specieis currenly evolve and speciate ect.. that they were actualyl created in another fashion and that the evidence is in the complexity of some biological systems. However it doesn't hold up to even faint scrutiny.
I at first had a lot of sympathy for this argument, but over the years I've come to reconsider my position on the question: who should have authority to define what science is? "Scientists" might seem a logical answer, but virtually all scientists I've talked to (dozens of them) can't really explain the term means. At best, they talk about the scientific method, but a) that term is somewhat fuzzy, too, and b) science != scientific method.
I majored in philosophy, so naturally I thought philosophy could tell me what science is. And it does. In hundreds of different ways. Probably the most famous definition is Karl Popper's, which roughly states that science is the set of assertions that is predictive and falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified despite strong attempts to do so. There are a couple problems with this theory, though, and the theory spawned a huge amount of controversial literature. To this day, philosophers debate what "science" is.
Control of education is something that should squarely fall under the control of politicians and the political process. Public schools can compel students to study history, math, etc. despite the parents' wishes because the curriculums are determined via representative democracy. In other words, the parents collectively and indirectly choose what to teach their kids in public school.
I'm not convinced that scientists should have control over our public schools' science curriculum any more than I'm convinced that priests should set the curriculum for (comparative) religion classes. Public education is so crucial to our society that it should be set by the people or their duly elected representatives, not some unelected technocracy. Sure, the technocracy can educate the representatives. In this case, though, the very uncertainty of the term in question makes an even stronger case for politicians, rather than technocrats, defining "science" for public schools.
Spoken liek a true post-modernist. Unfortunately post-modernism is a passing fade of the intellectually bored. Science is collecting and interprettign data utilizing a specific method. Nothign more, nothing less. It's prone to all the human foilables that other branches of humaity have, liek nepotism, politics ect.. But it doesn't invalidate the method or what it has achived.
Well, I don't know if destroying the foundations of biology will really "uproot the economy", since the only useful application of biological science is medicine. As long as there are still physicists (to teach engineers to build stable structures) and chemists (to tech drug manufacturers how to run meth labs), the state will probably continue to see economic prosperity. Maybe lifespans will be reduced slightly as people rely more on homeopathic medicine and exorcism, but at least this will prevent any antibiotic-resistant bacteria from evolving in Kansas.
The only thing is they will now require an additional year of university for all kansas high school students to Unlearn the garbage taught to them. Most of the time this only take 1 month to clear out the garbage from other states high school programs btu kansas willr equire a full year.
When Newton posited gravity, some people claimed that he wasn't doing science because he invoked medieval-sounding "occult powers", and hence wasn't giving properly naturalistic explanations. People who make up definitions of science and then try to rule out rival theories because they are not "scientific" are usually up to no good. Part of what is at stake in scientific controversy is what the proper definition of science is. I'm no fan of what the Kansas Board is doing, but your concern about the sanctity of the "definition of science" is misplaced.
You actually do sound very very much liek a fan of what they are doing. ID isn't a rival theory. It's like saying David Schimmer is a Rival of James Toney for the WBA heavy weight championship, just because david famous must mean he's a equaly valid alternate champion right? That's the logic being used that is why American Science marks this as the jumping of the shark and only worse things are to come.
The weapon was a Celine Dion Record played at volume 11. It nearly killed every living thing with taste within a 3km radius.
31 is the average age of the gamer market. You are spot on.
I never played the dreamcast, but I'm of the Playstation generation... and I like the X-Box because of the immersive quality of its games.
I'm a toking gamer - so there's a huge difference between walking into an empty room and skulking into a brilliantly shaded, lit room with curtains wafting in a breeze that I can hide behind in Splinter Cell. Immersion is important to me. X-Box games feel more complete.
By contrast, the PS2 has an awesome variety of games; the library is a compelling reason to own one. Among my friends, I'm the X-Box guy; they all have PS2s, so it works out well.
My experience as a gamer revolves around immersion and variety. The X-Box suffers from a lack of variety; the PS2 is not immersive. The PS2 is akin to watching VHS; whereas the X-Box is more of a DVD experience.
If the PS3 can promise immersion and variety, then I'm there. It'll be an easy call. I'm already going to get an XBox 360 because PS3 missed the boat by not having an online service.
Immersion != Graphics.
Immersion is how much time they spent makign things seem real. MGS3/Half Life 2 is as close to total immersion as I have every played, Halo 3 gives me no more then Quake 2.
It's the level of details in the enviroment, the way things react to you. In this respect Xbox games fail miserably since most of them are rushed to market by the publisher. they have pretty games but immersion isn't about just beign pretty. It's about small things like when you shoot a box off a table it falls. when you shoot a behive off a tree it falls and does soemthign ect.. That much mroe emmersive then any type of graphics.
It's easy to say the Xbox failed due to the fact that it lost money. However, it's hard to find a 10-year old nowadays who doesn't know Halo. They might also know GTA, but Halo has much less controversy surrounding it and is more likely to hit that critical pre-teen bracket where product preference is formed. Plus most of those 10 year olds can't play GTA anyways. Think about it from a marketing standpoint. Perhaps PS2 sold more systems and games, but which system has the movies being made about it's game characters? Even Nintendo's attempts to capitalize on Mario failed. Doom and Halo both are available for the Xbox exclusively and are (going to be) major motion pictures, even though Sony owns it's own motion picture studio. So even though Microsoft may have lost the financial fight, they probably at least are neck and neck, if not ahead, in the product recognition race. And that's what Microsoft does best - market to the masses. That's why Windows is more prevalent than CP/M, why Office is more prevalent that Lotus, and why the Xbox is helping them win over the next generation of geeks to walk the world.
Children don't run this market, Adult Males aged 18-34 do. So it doesn't Matter if GTa is controversial. That actually helps it.
For anyoen considering buying a 360, remember Mircosofts Rule of 3's. Verion 1 will fail spectacularly (Xbox and a few billion down the tubes), the next version will fail in a less sucktacular way (360 will be a moderate success, firmly #2 and lose microsoft hundreds of millions), and the Xbox 3 will be a resounding success finally making MS some money. I predict the third product will come out in 3 years, making the 360 one of the shortest console lifespans since the saturn.
It's amusing this article came up today
EB called me 3 weeks ago, told me I was in the first shipment. All good.
Today, get a call stating that I am number 25 of the first shipment and they're only recieving 18 units. They won't guarantee me a 360 before christmas either. (To their credit they said it was very likely, but they hesitated to use the word guarantee.)
Crappy. Good work MS. Bah Humbug.
Your not going to miss much. It won't be till long after christmas before any decent games come out. Problably not till mid summer till HAlo 3 comes out and so far Halo is the only reason to have a Xbox. Maybe fable if you like that whole Morrowind on a console idea.
Microsoft is bleeding for a good while because they choose to, because they believe it will net them greater profits long-term. Bleeding more isn't going to hurt them long term, unless everyone buys an XBox 360 and uses them as overpriced paperweights.
I'd say just don't buy this if they are going to toy with the buyers like this.
I wish it were that easy. You can similarly "just not use Windows", but that's not really a choice anymore either. XBox 360 is the only console that has a remotely cohesive online strategy. It has a lot of great game makers signed on, and for the hard-core gamer, outside of RPG's and weird games that Japanese obsess over, it has a better lineup of games than the PS3.
Actually if you really want to hurt them. Don't buy any. they may lose X dollars if you buy one, but they lose X dollars + your purchase price if you dont' buy any. If you buy one they say there are Y units out there and this may sway game makers to start producing more games for them. They'd lose more money long run if you don't but any at all because it completely sucks up the R&D money without any spin games to play to count it as anything but a dismal failure.
To give it credit where the credit is due, Civilization 3 and now 4 made victory through peace much more possible. In Civilization 4 there are 3 seperate peaceful victory possibilities, winning by generating a huge amount of "culture" (points you get by creating wonders and promoting things like art), building the space ship and getting to Alpha Centauri or being elected head of the United Nations. In comparison there are only 2 military victory conditions, dominating the map or wiping out everyone else.
The peaceful victory conditions are completely viable, and it's quite interesting to play with these goals in mind.
I hate that. In the middle of my Genocide of all other living things I keep accidentally culturally winning. (CIV3, MOO 1, Moo 2, Moo 3). Why can't you all die in peace.
Huh? You can't be serious.
Did you go to the Billy Graham Bible College?
Micr/Macro evolution are ID/Creationist ideas. Evolution does not actually contain those distinctions. Not the evolution outside of the states.
You know, i think it's funny that you hammer this guy for his ignorance, whe you have accepted this
"As for the weather, it isnt' a sign of the appocalypse, it's a sign of global warming"
as fact.
You sir, have simply replaced his religion with yours.
And no, I don't reject global warming. I reject the idea (as stated in this otherwise lucid post) that the cause of our current WEATHER is global warming.
Fact: The earth is getting warm.
Fact: Warmer weather is a result of havign more energy int he system. Energy power Hurricanes. This year we've had a marked increase in the severity of the hurricanes and weather patterns.
Contetnion: Is it us, or is it nature.
Contention: Is it goign to get worse? Is it goign to result in an ice age.
There isn't a dispute that temperatures have been rising continuously for some time. No scientist no matter how much of a shill can deny the temperature world wide is rising. The only contention is what does it mean and why. I only pointed out that right wing people generally deny there is a problem and some deny the data all together. As well contention doesn't mean it couldn't be true. It only means that there are some (minority) voices who say that it may be other causes beside us. As well there isn't any contention that warmer weather brings more hurricanes and violent storms.