Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Weren't the Fallout guys always doing things like saying "Suck my holy flame!" and shooting you when you got a look at their drug shash? That was such a funny game. Everything in there was so warped that it would be a stretch to take anything in it as saying something about a real-world institution.
While your theory has the virtue of sounding good, and is certainly a commendable way of applying your religious beliefs to your understanding of how the universe works, it is completely unscientific, and so does not represent science and religion mixing perfectly. If two scientific theories explain something equally well (in this case, "randomness, and we don't know why" vs. "randomness from God, a hazily defined and unconstrained entity whom we don't understand"), the simpler is presumed to be the best one. That is why you never see articles in scientific journals including God in their explanation: religion doesn't mix into science. However, science can, as you demonstrate, be a component of a religion.
This God sounds like an asshole. I can understand obeying Him out of pure self-interest, but how can we derive moral authority from this guy?
This may sound like an attack, but I'd honestly like to hear an explanation. Right now my current theory is that it's best to ignore the Old Testament and just do what everybody else does while looking for Bible verses that support what you've already decided to do.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Could you point out some examples of games ridiculing Christianity? I'm finding myself a bit puzzled by the frequent references to them---and besides, I might like to play some.;-)
Except that drivers commonly run in kernel space, not in user space, so they can destabilize the system.
Then it's not a really robust OS, is it? Mind you, I don't see the Hurd being usable for a while, but I think they trade speed for stability on this one.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I only mentioned coal plants' radiation because people get so irrationally worried by nuclear plants.
And coal plants don't belch out poisonous fumes at random. They do have scrubbers that catch 99% of the particals.
Yes they do, but those aren't anywhere near clean. You see smoke coming out of coal plants, and it's still smoke. The smoke that does escape does get belched out at random. This is especially worrisome in countries with looser pollution standards, since scrubbers presumably cost money and money is often less abundant than we'd like. And the particles caught by the scrubbers do have to go somewhere, but for some reason you don't hear the hysteria that nuclear waste gets. Me, I'm not hysterical about either one, but I know which I prefer.
Personally, I wouldn't object to nuclear energy if they put the reactor somewhere sensible like several miles underground in a disused mine. Then there wouldn't be any need transportation above ground. And they wouldn't have to worry about plane crashes, or leaks of "hot particles".
Some places do that. Other places have the reactor above ground in a heavy concrete containment structure (and that's on top of the reactor's concrete casing). And they do make sure that nuclear plants meet certain regulations for maximum radiation emissions. They pale into insignificance when you consider the amount of background radiation.
Don't worry about hot particles. Worry about the alternative to nuclear power: belching out poisonous fumes at random, and in some cases (like coal plants) putting several times as much radiation into the atmosphere as nuclear plants.
Unfortunately, the people opposing the adoption of nuclear power have forced us to get our power from very dirty polluting CO2-and-often-radiation-belching acid-rain-causing coal and oil plants.
Oh boo-fucking-hoo. If you're in Greenpeace, you should base all such decisions on what sounds environmentally friendly and upon "information" you just made up. For example, if fusion power becomes a viable reality, should we use it? Yes, we should. But according to Greenpeace, it's nuclear (so it doesn't sound environmentally friendly), and it allegedly has all the problems of fission (a "fact" pulled out of someone's ass; it can't melt down even with the most braindead design and handling, it produces very little waste, it doesn't need Uranium, etc.). Conclusion: let's put photovoltaic panels on our roofs, build windmills that give off a pretty erratic stream of electricity (which will need to be supplemented with conventional power plants, which due to the efforts of people like Greenpeace members will probably be fossil-fuel-belchers rather than the much cleaner nuclear fission plants), and disrupt wetland wildlife habitats with hydroelectric power. And I'm pretty sure flywheels come in here somewhere as well.
Go for the impractical thing that sounds environmentally friendly. Go for the wooden sailboat.
Bah, the Altair? I prefer something bigger, like the Atanasoff computer. It may not be better, but if you crashed the two into each other, the older one wins, like an SUV.
Here is yet another misunderstanding perpetrated by the inability of traditional English punctuation to group things! I propose that curly braces be used as grouping delimiters, since it's not like we're using them anyway except in TeX. Behold: "3-{D-cell} Maglight". Better? YES! JOIN THE HOLY CRUSADE!
Your fence has holes in it. Try reading slashdot (I haven't seen it blocked) at threshold -1. Try going to everything2.com and clicking interesting links for a while, and you may arrive at a page about "how I nearly killed myself masturbating". Mostly unblocked.
And when your fence blocks lots of perfectly legitimate sites, it's just getting in the way and providing the illusion of protection.
That's the only place you can filter. Web filters don't work worth a damn, and you can't always be hovering over the kid monitoring (at least not without some serious heavy-handedness and dedication), but I say the parents should get to the kid's mind before the rest of the world does, and the kid will be prepared.
The best and only filter exists between chair and keyboard.
Screen can do more than just multiple consoles. It has scrolling, copy & paste, list of windows, do output logging, and whatever other features they put in there to make screen a worthy piece of software.
You may say "hire bodyguards" or "make deals with actual organized crime", but from a simplified business standpoint it all comes to the same thing: "overhead".
Slashdot Mirror
Weren't the Fallout guys always doing things like saying "Suck my holy flame!" and shooting you when you got a look at their drug shash? That was such a funny game. Everything in there was so warped that it would be a stretch to take anything in it as saying something about a real-world institution.
While your theory has the virtue of sounding good, and is certainly a commendable way of applying your religious beliefs to your understanding of how the universe works, it is completely unscientific, and so does not represent science and religion mixing perfectly. If two scientific theories explain something equally well (in this case, "randomness, and we don't know why" vs. "randomness from God, a hazily defined and unconstrained entity whom we don't understand"), the simpler is presumed to be the best one. That is why you never see articles in scientific journals including God in their explanation: religion doesn't mix into science. However, science can, as you demonstrate, be a component of a religion.
This God sounds like an asshole. I can understand obeying Him out of pure self-interest, but how can we derive moral authority from this guy?
This may sound like an attack, but I'd honestly like to hear an explanation. Right now my current theory is that it's best to ignore the Old Testament and just do what everybody else does while looking for Bible verses that support what you've already decided to do.
Could you point out some examples of games ridiculing Christianity? I'm finding myself a bit puzzled by the frequent references to them---and besides, I might like to play some. ;-)
Three words: dead man switch.
Apparently you've never been axed down by one of those bearded freaks. I'll take the ribs and turn into a dwarf, thank you very much.
Then it's not a really robust OS, is it? Mind you, I don't see the Hurd being usable for a while, but I think they trade speed for stability on this one.
That's another area where PNG surpasses GIF. The PNG standard states that the correct pronunciation is "ping".
And coal plants don't belch out poisonous fumes at random. They do have scrubbers that catch 99% of the particals.
Yes they do, but those aren't anywhere near clean. You see smoke coming out of coal plants, and it's still smoke. The smoke that does escape does get belched out at random. This is especially worrisome in countries with looser pollution standards, since scrubbers presumably cost money and money is often less abundant than we'd like. And the particles caught by the scrubbers do have to go somewhere, but for some reason you don't hear the hysteria that nuclear waste gets. Me, I'm not hysterical about either one, but I know which I prefer.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, our target market for this movie is people who are into kinky bondage stuff. Yes, it's really that painful to watch"
Some places do that. Other places have the reactor above ground in a heavy concrete containment structure (and that's on top of the reactor's concrete casing). And they do make sure that nuclear plants meet certain regulations for maximum radiation emissions. They pale into insignificance when you consider the amount of background radiation.
Don't worry about hot particles. Worry about the alternative to nuclear power: belching out poisonous fumes at random, and in some cases (like coal plants) putting several times as much radiation into the atmosphere as nuclear plants.
Unfortunately, the people opposing the adoption of nuclear power have forced us to get our power from very dirty polluting CO2-and-often-radiation-belching acid-rain-causing coal and oil plants.
Reusing old computers is about as environmentally friendly as you can get, and cheaper too.
Go for the impractical thing that sounds environmentally friendly. Go for the wooden sailboat.
Bah, the Altair? I prefer something bigger, like the Atanasoff computer. It may not be better, but if you crashed the two into each other, the older one wins, like an SUV.
Spoilsport.
Shouldn't that be 2.875G? Or is that too many digits?
We have handguns! We also have rifles, carbines, and knives of questionable legality! We don't have many iPods, though, at least not where I live.
Alright, then could we fantasize about targeted EMPs? Or .50cal semiautomatics, I'm not particular.
Mmmm, targeted EMPs....
Here is yet another misunderstanding perpetrated by the inability of traditional English punctuation to group things! I propose that curly braces be used as grouping delimiters, since it's not like we're using them anyway except in TeX. Behold: "3-{D-cell} Maglight". Better? YES! JOIN THE HOLY CRUSADE!
Would it help if I drank plenty of Mr. Pibb?
And when your fence blocks lots of perfectly legitimate sites, it's just getting in the way and providing the illusion of protection.
That's the only place you can filter. Web filters don't work worth a damn, and you can't always be hovering over the kid monitoring (at least not without some serious heavy-handedness and dedication), but I say the parents should get to the kid's mind before the rest of the world does, and the kid will be prepared. The best and only filter exists between chair and keyboard.
Screen can do more than just multiple consoles. It has scrolling, copy & paste, list of windows, do output logging, and whatever other features they put in there to make screen a worthy piece of software.
You may say "hire bodyguards" or "make deals with actual organized crime", but from a simplified business standpoint it all comes to the same thing: "overhead".
All of this "around here, the age of consent is X" stuff is getting silly, so perhaps we could just look at the great big reference.