The proper analogy is your friend spending $50 on a really nice bowling ball while you use the one from the bowling alley.
Nah.
A better analogy would be for your friend to hire a pro bowler to bowl a bunch of frames for him, and then throw the last couple himself once his score is sufficiently high to win. Then telling everyone about how much he loves bowling, and how good he is at it.
This being slashdot, can anyone come up with a car-related analogy?
This person enjoys video games but like many finds the grind annoying. Now his time is worth a lot to society and he has money so he pays someone else to do the grind for him.
I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it necessarily, but if that's the case he should probably find a game that's better suited to his interests. Paying someone else to perform what is supposed to be a leisure activity, because one finds a large portion of the game to be tedious seems like the height of stupidity.
Find something to play that's actually fun, instead.
Really? Well then it should be no problem for you to list the names of a few Americans who needed such life-saving treatment and couldn't get it, right?
People get sick, and much of the time if they can't afford the doctor, they just don't go for help. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get sicker and die.
Are you denying that this happens?
Hell, there have been plenty of times when I probably should have gone to the doctor and I didn't. Why not? Because I'm not so poor that they'll give me free treatment, but I wasn't able to afford the few hundred dollars the bill would have cost me.
In Canada it basicaly works like this: if you can afford it, you pay to use an American MRI machine, as well as paying your travel costs to get over the border. If you CAN'T afford it, you wait until a Canadian machine opens up, and pray you don't die in the meantime. I'm not sure how that's any better than the US system.
That's pretty similar to the US system: If you can afford it, you pay to use the American MRI machine.
Except for the part about waiting for a Canadian machine to open up if you can't afford that. Here in the US, if you can't afford it, you just wait to die.
"85 percent of the nation's grazing lands are not suitable for farming... Cattle eat forages that humans cannot consume and convert them into a nutrient-dense food."
I'm no expert on any of this, but aren't most cattle these days fed mostly corn and the like? They might eat some grass, but my understanding is that it doesn't make up the bulk of their diet.
We used to purposely pick names that would look good on the tombstone, since anyone who played the same disk after you would see it when they passed by wherever on the Trail you died. It also let you write an epitaph for yourself
Or my personal favorite:
The game is also notorious for the ability to create custom inscriptions on the tombstones of deceased party members. Perhaps the most visible example of this is a tombstone found in most copies of the disk image available for download: the tombstone reads "Here lies andy; peperony and chease". An email sent to a gaming website claims that this is the result of a schoolboy (going by the name of "Andy") who was inspired by advertisements for Tombstone Pizza (which featured the tagline, "What do you want on your Tombstone?"), whose game was saved to a disk which later became the popular pirated disk image.
I call bullshit, I don't think that any society, even at the tribe level, can exist without some common shared morals (i.e. don't kill your neighbor for no good reason), although those morals may not align with the missionaries. Sources?
Oh, they definitely have a set of shared morals, but its generally acknowledged to be more directly linked to living in a way that works for them, rather than a set of morals bestowed on them by their God or gods.
i.e. in the case of "don't kill your neighbor", there's a difference between - killing your neighbor is wrong, because it weakens the tribe and causes all sorts of problems for everyone and - killing your neighbor is wrong, because God said so, and the fact that it happens to weaken the tribe and cause other problems is just sort of incidental to what God said.
I realize "stuff I read over the years" isn't going to cut it as a source- if you're interested in further information I'll try to find something more specific.
No? It doesn't teach that the nature of humans is to be in a state of "the sleep of ignorance", that we bring suffering upon ourselves, and if we behave a certain way, we can eliminate that suffering and become more perfectly enlightened?
To me, that translates into "humans are imperfect in their 'natural' state, and need to follow this belief system to perfect themselves."
Frankly those of us who believe in the rationality of the Darwinian view don't have to defend it; it stands on its own merits.
People can still be turned away from a perfectly valid idea through lies and misinformation. Most anti-evolutionists seem to have many misunderstandings about the theory of evolution, and about science in general. These misunderstandings spread, and pretty soon even people who don't necessarily believe in Creation Theory are saying that evolution and creation deserve equal consideration or they both deserve being taught in public schools.
Well, no, they really don't deserve equal time, any more than teaching 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 both deserve to taught.
When nearly half of America believes in the creationist view, I do think we should need to defend valid scientific theories that are under attack from religious zealots.
The thing I never understood was that the fruit was meant to give 'knowledge of good and evil,' allowing them to choose between good and evil. Before eating the fruit, they were only capable of good, and yet were naked. After eating the fruit, they were still naked, but now they realised being naked was 'evil,' and so they must have been doing 'evil' while they were only capable of 'good.'
One theory on what exactly constitutes the "knowledge of good and evil"... Think of it this way- when a lion kills and eats an antelope, it's good for the lion and evil for the antelope. If the antelope gets away, then its good for the antelope, and evil for the lion.
God decides who lives and who dies, and this applies to humans as well, in a hunter-gatherer level of development. God decides when your hunting trips are successful, and when you fail. God decides when you find a nice berry bush, or when the bushes are empty.
The knowledge of good and evil occurred when humans took control over their own destinies- when they settled down and started to practice agriculture, herding, etc. Then they no longer needed to rely heavily on the goodwill of God to take care of them, as they could take care of themselves.
And my hormonal reaction is in no way a "sin", an "error", it is exactly healthy functioning of the male human animal./i>
That's precisely the problem. You're acting according to your biological instincts, but in most cases, those are exactly what constitutes a sin. To be free from sin, you're supposed to rise above your animal urges and become some sort of superhuman, driven purely by spiritual needs.
Before eating from the tree of knowledge A&E had no knowledge of right and wrong (it was the tree who gave knowledge of good and evil, right?).
Funny thing- from what I've heard, a lot of the time when missionaries make first contact with various hunter-gatherer tribes, the missionaries have to teach them about the concepts of good and evil, because they don't have the concepts in their culture.
So basically the knowledge of good and evil, which is what God specifically forbid Adam and Eve from learning about!
Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.
I think that's the reason why so many people have a problem with the museum. It's not just the work of a few isolated idiots- they have an organized effort to teach their idiocy to millions of kids in schools.
So the gloves are off already, and rightfully so. Hopefully the attention given to the museum will serve to discredit them further, but I'm not exactly holding out hope for that.
I have no scientific proof that my wife isn't cheating on me right now. In fact, statistically, there is a strong chance that she is. But I choose to believe that she isn't, because part of having a successful relationship is having trust, even having faith in one's partner.
But you do have scientific proof that your wife physically exists. If you pointed to the empty space next to you and introduced it to people as your wife, people would rightfully think you were insane.
At that point it goes onto the Senate for the actual "trial". News flash - indictment requires a two thrids majority. Right now, the Dems have a one seat (by party) majority totalling far short of the necessary 2/3 vote necessary. On top of that the Chief Justice of the USSC has to preside over the case. You know, the same Chief Justice who was nominated by the guy you people want to impeach?
How sad is it that we expect these things to be determined by cronyism and party affiliation, rather than these people actually doing their job?
Seriously, there could be video of Bush and Cheney going on a rape-and-murder spree and the impeachment vote would still go along party lines, probably with a few Democrats still voting against impeachment.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding WoW, my colourful distraction is more important than a 'poor guy' feeding himself. That poor guy is disrupting a game I pay money to play.
Holy shit, did you actually just say this?
Regarding WoW, my colourful distraction is more important than a 'poor guy' feeding himself
Seriously?
Your right to play WoW trumps the right of some guy to eat?
Your game is marginally less fun now. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Please re-read what you typed a few times until you realize what a colossal fucking asshole you are.
The proper analogy is your friend spending $50 on a really nice bowling ball while you use the one from the bowling alley.
Nah.
A better analogy would be for your friend to hire a pro bowler to bowl a bunch of frames for him, and then throw the last couple himself once his score is sufficiently high to win. Then telling everyone about how much he loves bowling, and how good he is at it.
This being slashdot, can anyone come up with a car-related analogy?
This person enjoys video games but like many finds the grind annoying. Now his time is worth a lot to society and he has money so he pays someone else to do the grind for him.
I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it necessarily, but if that's the case he should probably find a game that's better suited to his interests. Paying someone else to perform what is supposed to be a leisure activity, because one finds a large portion of the game to be tedious seems like the height of stupidity.
Find something to play that's actually fun, instead.
Really? Well then it should be no problem for you to list the names of a few Americans who needed such life-saving treatment and couldn't get it, right?
People get sick, and much of the time if they can't afford the doctor, they just don't go for help.
Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get sicker and die.
Are you denying that this happens?
Hell, there have been plenty of times when I probably should have gone to the doctor and I didn't.
Why not? Because I'm not so poor that they'll give me free treatment, but I wasn't able to afford the
few hundred dollars the bill would have cost me.
In Canada it basicaly works like this: if you can afford it, you pay to use an American MRI machine, as well as paying your travel costs to get over the border. If you CAN'T afford it, you wait until a Canadian machine opens up, and pray you don't die in the meantime. I'm not sure how that's any better than the US system.
That's pretty similar to the US system:
If you can afford it, you pay to use the American MRI machine.
Except for the part about waiting for a Canadian machine to open up if you can't afford that.
Here in the US, if you can't afford it, you just wait to die.
unselfishness is certainly a component of altruism, but the actual definition of altruism
should be more precise than the one word.
Basically, that's an acceptable entry for a thesaurus, but I'd want my dictionary definition
to go into a little more detail.
"85 percent of the nation's grazing lands are not suitable for farming... Cattle eat forages that humans cannot consume and convert them into a nutrient-dense food."
I'm no expert on any of this, but aren't most cattle these days fed mostly corn and the like?
They might eat some grass, but my understanding is that it doesn't make up the bulk of their diet.
So anything east of say, Kansas, is considered to be eastern?
Traditionally, Ohio has always been considered the midwest.
Culturally, it's a lot closer to the other midwestern states than to the eastern states.
Then again, a large chunk of the nation thinks Ohio is somehow part of the "midwest." WTF? Ever seen a map???
Wow, you should really straighten out those dumbasses at the US Census Bureau.
They might be interested in learning that Ohio isn't part of the midwest.
Unfortunately $35k won't take him very far. He will probably need at least 10x that much.
How exactly would $350,000 help substantiate his loony idea better than $35,000?
Or my personal favorite:
Committed to Excellence in Defense of The Nation
Wow, they really take the First Amendment seriously!
I call bullshit, I don't think that any society, even at the tribe level, can exist without some common shared morals (i.e. don't kill your neighbor for no good reason), although those morals may not align with the missionaries. Sources?
Oh, they definitely have a set of shared morals, but its generally acknowledged to be more directly linked to living in a way that works for them, rather than a set of morals bestowed on them by their God or gods.
i.e. in the case of "don't kill your neighbor", there's a difference between
- killing your neighbor is wrong, because it weakens the tribe and causes all sorts of problems for everyone
and
- killing your neighbor is wrong, because God said so, and the fact that it happens to weaken the tribe and cause other problems is just sort of incidental to what God said.
I realize "stuff I read over the years" isn't going to cut it as a source- if you're interested in further information I'll try to find something more specific.
FYI, Buddhism doesn't teach that at all.
No? It doesn't teach that the nature of humans is to be in a state of "the sleep of ignorance",
that we bring suffering upon ourselves, and if we behave a certain way, we can eliminate that suffering
and become more perfectly enlightened?
To me, that translates into "humans are imperfect in their 'natural' state, and need to follow this belief system to perfect themselves."
Frankly those of us who believe in the rationality of the Darwinian view don't have to defend it; it stands on its own merits.
People can still be turned away from a perfectly valid idea through lies and misinformation.
Most anti-evolutionists seem to have many misunderstandings about the theory of evolution,
and about science in general. These misunderstandings spread, and pretty soon even people who don't
necessarily believe in Creation Theory are saying that evolution and creation deserve equal consideration
or they both deserve being taught in public schools.
Well, no, they really don't deserve equal time, any more than teaching 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 both deserve to taught.
When nearly half of America believes in the creationist view, I do think we should need to defend valid scientific theories that are under attack from religious zealots.
The thing I never understood was that the fruit was meant to give 'knowledge of good and evil,' allowing them to choose between good and evil. Before eating the fruit, they were only capable of good, and yet were naked. After eating the fruit, they were still naked, but now they realised being naked was 'evil,' and so they must have been doing 'evil' while they were only capable of 'good.'
One theory on what exactly constitutes the "knowledge of good and evil"...
Think of it this way- when a lion kills and eats an antelope, it's good for the lion and evil for the antelope.
If the antelope gets away, then its good for the antelope, and evil for the lion.
God decides who lives and who dies, and this applies to humans as well, in a hunter-gatherer level of development. God decides when your hunting trips are successful, and when you fail. God decides when you find a nice berry bush, or when the bushes are empty.
The knowledge of good and evil occurred when humans took control over their own destinies- when they settled down and started to practice agriculture, herding, etc. Then they no longer needed to rely heavily on the goodwill of God to take care of them, as they could take care of themselves.
The Buddhists? Unitarians?
All religions teach that there is something wrong with humankind, and we
need religion to straighten us out. That's the Big Lie they ALL rely on.
Here's the Big Truth- there's nothing wrong with the human race.
And my hormonal reaction is in no way a "sin", an "error", it is exactly healthy functioning of the male human animal./i>
That's precisely the problem.
You're acting according to your biological instincts, but in most cases,
those are exactly what constitutes a sin.
To be free from sin, you're supposed to rise above your animal urges and
become some sort of superhuman, driven purely by spiritual needs.
Before eating from the tree of knowledge A&E had no knowledge of right and wrong (it was the tree who gave knowledge of good and evil, right?).
Funny thing- from what I've heard, a lot of the time when missionaries make first contact with various hunter-gatherer tribes, the missionaries have to teach them about the concepts of good and evil, because they don't have the concepts in their culture.
So basically the knowledge of good and evil, which is what God specifically forbid Adam and Eve from learning about!
Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.
I think that's the reason why so many people have a problem with the museum.
It's not just the work of a few isolated idiots- they have an organized effort to teach their
idiocy to millions of kids in schools.
So the gloves are off already, and rightfully so.
Hopefully the attention given to the museum will serve to discredit them further,
but I'm not exactly holding out hope for that.
I have no scientific proof that my wife isn't cheating on me right now. In fact, statistically, there is a strong chance that she is. But I choose to believe that she isn't, because part of having a successful relationship is having trust, even having faith in one's partner.
But you do have scientific proof that your wife physically exists.
If you pointed to the empty space next to you and introduced it to people as your wife,
people would rightfully think you were insane.
Not all religions promote falsehoods either.
Name one.
At that point it goes onto the Senate for the actual "trial". News flash - indictment requires a two thrids majority. Right now, the Dems have a one seat (by party) majority totalling far short of the necessary 2/3 vote necessary. On top of that the Chief Justice of the USSC has to preside over the case. You know, the same Chief Justice who was nominated by the guy you people want to impeach?
How sad is it that we expect these things to be determined by cronyism and party affiliation, rather than these people actually doing their job?
Seriously, there could be video of Bush and Cheney going on a rape-and-murder spree and the impeachment vote would still go along party lines, probably with a few Democrats still voting against impeachment.
"The lawyers tell me there are no prohibitions against robots making life-or-death decisions"
violates the Geneva Conventions
pfft, that old thing?
That's pre-9/11 thinking.