"Complaining about a computer whose total accoustical emissions is less than 30dB seems pretty spoiled to me."
No, it just means that there are people who are more sensitive than you are. There's nothing wrong with that. For instance, some people (like me) can hear the whine of a CRT, while others (like my wife) think that said people are nuts. Some people use their computers for noise-sensitive recordings, in which case 30dB is far too loud. My computer is virtually silent within 4 ft (Seasonic S12-380 PSU, 1 92mm Nexus @ 12v, 2 92mm generic @ 5v, 1 80mm generic jury-rigged for my video card heatsink), but the low hum of the fans is occasionally bothersome.
Just because you don't understand that some people are sensitive, there's no reason to call them "spoiled." It's wonderful that you have no problems with your hearing (I consider being able to hear a CRT whine a hearing problem, as it's seriously bothersome to me), but don't slam those of us who do.
"I agree with the original post that it's ugly, but thats probably because I'm used to the really nice Mac OS X cocoa applications such as Safari."
"Nice," as in brushed metal theme? I can make Opera/Windows look *exactly* the same as Safari by getting Style XP.
"It's not much/any worse than Windows IE, I guess. Still, it's interface is horrid compared to firefox, camino, safari, shiira, etc so I've never considered using it."
Opera's default interface is exactly the same as every other web browser out there. I don't see what the problem is.
"As for bloated, I don't like having an email client built in, but it doesn't seem to get in the way."
It's less than 4 MB. If you consider that to be bloated, there's a problem;) Also, Opera starts up faster than IE, renders pages faster, and backs up faster too. Email is turned off by default, and you have to set up an email account through Opera before you'd even know it's there.
"And the skins for Opera don't seem to do much."
You want your browser skin to match the rest of your OS, right? I've currently got my skin set to "Windows Native" so that it looks exactly the same as the rest of my applications. Add in any fancy skins to the OS, and Opera'll look the same as everything else too.
I'm using Windows XP with themes turned off to avoid the fisher price effect. I didn't see anything in the video that's functionally different from Opera: same google search field, RSS reader, and window placement as Opera. It seems to me that your only quibble is how ugly it is, which can be fixed very easily (as I've mentioned... I'm sure that there's a OSX Native skin option in the mac version). If your only complaint is that the UI is ugly, and you haven't tried Opera in a while, it might be worth the whopping 4 MB to do so.
I started using Opera about four years ago and haven't looked back. There are a few sites that simply refuse to work (notably those using intensive Java/Javascript applets), but the number is fewer and fewer every year. Not trying to get you to convert, but it's made my life a great deal simpler (using an uncommon browser means less virus worries, less hostile scripts, etc.; but then again, safari's uncommon too), and it might be worth it to you to give it a shot.
The screen shots are *awesome*. It really feels like Wargames. I loved uplink, but was one of the few that didn't "get" Darwinia... here's hoping that GTW will be a smashing success!
"Why? You KNOW it's going to suck. Ender's game was filled with lots of psycho-babble, with lots of little moments, and the primary skill Card has is that of describing something beautifully, not in coming up with OMFG! plotlines."
Uh, did you read Ender's Game? Do you remember the huge plot twist at the end of the novel?
"I don't even know what network originally aired the series, but I'm enjoying it greatly through Netflix."
That would be Fox - but it's not your fault you missed it, as Fox screwed around with the show from the beginning, what with them not playing them in order and all.
What about a charity that cold-calls asking for donations of clothing? The Canadian Diabetes Association routinely calls me asking if I've got any clothing or used toys to donate to them; I have absolutely no problem with this.
I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I mean it. I tend to get all rustic when I talk about where I live (I'm originally from Vancouver), and meant "coon" as meaning a "raccoon" rather than a perjorative for a black person. The expression "a coon's age" is an idiom that refers to the mistaken belief that raccoons live for a long time, and didn't even know that "coon" was a derrogatory term. Again, very sorry if I offended you; it was not intentional.
I read the article, but still couldn't figure out why they're getting rid of the card. Does it simply cost too much to produce, and nobody's buying it? Is ATI giving them a run for their money, & they're forced to be more competitive? I can't figure out why they'd get rid of their top card. Can somebody please explain why this makes sense?
Nice try yourself. Science is not taught by indoctrination...
So what's the current reason for how the Big Bang came about, exactly? Interesting how it's being taught when there's no proof or explanation for how it began.
and the reasons to oppose religion are not in any way dogmatic (other than the "There is but one God and all heretics shall die" type).
You're right: the reason that people like you oppose religion is because science is your god.
You are trying to prove by repetition. That's a demonstrably invalid approach, unless, of course, you're into indoctrination again. But if it makes you feel better: *organized* religion is the problem, because it leads directly to greed, power, abuse, and control of the weak by the evil.
So the problem isn't religion, but organisation. Case in point: bureaucracies in democratic countries become corrupt not because they're in a democratic state, but because the nature of a bureaucracy naturally lends itself to corruption. A CEO of a company embezzles money because the nature of the organisation tolerates it, not because capitalism itself is "bad". Likewise, the bureaucracy that forms around larger religions allows corruption, not the religion itself.
Or are you honestly telling me that greed, power, abuse, and control of the weak by the evil are only found in organised religion? Time to wake up and smell the roses, my friend: religion isn't the problem. The problem is humanity itself.
And, finally, your claim of correlation between religion and decreased crime rates is total crap. Even if one accepts the position that, e.g., leaving widows out to die is not a crime (in Afghanistan, the Taliban says women may not appear in public alone and may not have jobs -- so if the husband dies or leaves, there aren't too many options for the woman), the percentage of criminals who are atheists remains low.
I didn't claim that there was a hard and fast correlation between the decline of religious adherence and the rise of violent crime; I said that it was interesting that two might possibly be related. I've never read a single study or a report that supports this idea. Methinks you need to learn some critical reading skills, my son.
BTW, no god invented the nuclear bomb, but neither did any god invent antibiotics, anasthesia, or color TVs. So spare us your disingenuous blather.
If you think that color TV is as beneficial to humanity as antibiotics and anasthesia, I think that discussions about evolution and God shouldn't be your biggest concern.
Well, like I said, all I've got is an interesting correlation rather than a cause-and-effect system. I won't pretend that I've got all the answers, so it's very possible that you're entirely right and I'm completely wrong;)
Heh, nice link (2nd): "The only political party supporting drug legalization is the Libertarian Party (1-800-682-1776). I urge you to join us." They wouldn't have any discernable bias, now would they?
The violent crime rate is higher; google "violent crime 20 years" and you'll see this. Religious adherence has also dropped, which can be proven just as easily. As I said, there's no overt link between the two, which is why I called the correlation "interesting" rather than "statistically significant."
First: you can't "indoctrinate against [any religion]" because the opposing position is testable. Religious people indoctrinate their children and followers with religious dogma. Scientists investigate and test. It's completely different.
Nice try. The word "indoctrinate" means "to teach doctrines to; teach uncritically." You can teach a doctrine of anti-religion just as easily as you can teach a religious doctrine.
Second: nobody said to attack only Christianity. Judaism is just as bad, and Islam is worse. The religion IS the problem, despite what many bleeding-heart conservatives and liberals alike whimper regularly --you know, the usual "don't lump the fanatics in with the mainstream" crap.
Wow. I didn't realise it was so fashionable to attack religion these days. Go figure.
Religion *isn't* a problem, and hasn't ever been a problem any more than human greed or corruption has been. Or are you going to tell me that the cause of WWII, the conflict that killed more people than any two other wars in history, was caused by religion? That the atom bomb was created by religious fundamentalists?
More than 3 billion people on the planet belong to one religion or another. This number is on the decline, yet the crime rates in many countries around the world are skyrocketing. This is a very simple comparison, of course, and not necessarily correlative, but I find it somewhat fascinating that where religious adherence falls, crime rates shoot through the roof.
"I am glad this guy made this comment and wanted to have this class."
You're glad that this prof abused his position of power in order to attack an entire set of religious beliefs? You're glad that this prof essentially intended to indoctrinate his students against Christianity? (Hey, anti-Christians band the word "indoctrinate" all the time; it seems to me that attacking a set of beliefs rather than presenting them in a fair and mature way is the essence of indoctrination.)
"But when some jesus waving ignorant religious fanatic undermines hundreds of years of study with a good catch word, that pissed me off."
I'm not exactly a fan of ID either, but this kind of hateful rhetoric goes against everything the US stands for. Why is it acceptable to attack Christianity but not Judaism or Islam, for instance?
" A few choice quotes from a private e-mail is not enough to conclude that a teacher is disliked by his students, or that his classes are especially unprofessional."
FTA:
'Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face."'
You're telling me that a religious studies prof who says this could actually be anything *but* unprofessional? He apologised for his comments. The chancellor called them "repugnant and vile." But you're sitting there and defending them???
"While he may have been insensitive and overzealous, I see nothing wrong with a professor of religious studies having opinions about religious matters..."
There's having an opinion that you share with peers in private, and then there's having an "opinion" as an authority figure that you share with your students. Hint: it's not appropriate for a prof to disseminate what essentially amounts to hate speech to a group of students to whom this guy is an authority figure. Dollars to donuts that, if he didn't apologise, his tenure would be revoked and he'd be out of a job.
I know you're joking, but who reads slashdot for the submissions? I thought we were all here to read the comments, and maybe, just maybe, get that coveted +5 moderation.
No, he's absolutely right - but if only if you're talking about shirt sizes, not chromosomes. I mean, how else are you supposed to distinguish between gamers and devs at E3, for instance?
B&H Photo and Video (NY, NY) is a terrific store, both brick & mortar and online. If you're into camera supplies and refuse to buy from them, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Slashdot Mirror
Porn is a God-given right? I missed that lesson in Sunday school...
No, it just means that there are people who are more sensitive than you are. There's nothing wrong with that. For instance, some people (like me) can hear the whine of a CRT, while others (like my wife) think that said people are nuts. Some people use their computers for noise-sensitive recordings, in which case 30dB is far too loud. My computer is virtually silent within 4 ft (Seasonic S12-380 PSU, 1 92mm Nexus @ 12v, 2 92mm generic @ 5v, 1 80mm generic jury-rigged for my video card heatsink), but the low hum of the fans is occasionally bothersome.
Just because you don't understand that some people are sensitive, there's no reason to call them "spoiled." It's wonderful that you have no problems with your hearing (I consider being able to hear a CRT whine a hearing problem, as it's seriously bothersome to me), but don't slam those of us who do.
"Nice," as in brushed metal theme? I can make Opera/Windows look *exactly* the same as Safari by getting Style XP.
"It's not much/any worse than Windows IE, I guess. Still, it's interface is horrid compared to firefox, camino, safari, shiira, etc so I've never considered using it."
Opera's default interface is exactly the same as every other web browser out there. I don't see what the problem is.
"As for bloated, I don't like having an email client built in, but it doesn't seem to get in the way."
It's less than 4 MB. If you consider that to be bloated, there's a problem ;) Also, Opera starts up faster than IE, renders pages faster, and backs up faster too. Email is turned off by default, and you have to set up an email account through Opera before you'd even know it's there.
"And the skins for Opera don't seem to do much."
You want your browser skin to match the rest of your OS, right? I've currently got my skin set to "Windows Native" so that it looks exactly the same as the rest of my applications. Add in any fancy skins to the OS, and Opera'll look the same as everything else too.
I'm using Windows XP with themes turned off to avoid the fisher price effect. I didn't see anything in the video that's functionally different from Opera: same google search field, RSS reader, and window placement as Opera. It seems to me that your only quibble is how ugly it is, which can be fixed very easily (as I've mentioned... I'm sure that there's a OSX Native skin option in the mac version). If your only complaint is that the UI is ugly, and you haven't tried Opera in a while, it might be worth the whopping 4 MB to do so.
I started using Opera about four years ago and haven't looked back. There are a few sites that simply refuse to work (notably those using intensive Java/Javascript applets), but the number is fewer and fewer every year. Not trying to get you to convert, but it's made my life a great deal simpler (using an uncommon browser means less virus worries, less hostile scripts, etc.; but then again, safari's uncommon too), and it might be worth it to you to give it a shot.
The screen shots are *awesome*. It really feels like Wargames. I loved uplink, but was one of the few that didn't "get" Darwinia... here's hoping that GTW will be a smashing success!
Opera 8.51 (with navigation buttons moved, otherwise everyhing else default).
Uh, did you read Ender's Game? Do you remember the huge plot twist at the end of the novel?
That would be Fox - but it's not your fault you missed it, as Fox screwed around with the show from the beginning, what with them not playing them in order and all.
SP2's broken a few old Win16 apps of mine as well. Why upgrade to SP2 when SP1 is terrific?
Glad to see that PA did so well!
I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. I mean it. I tend to get all rustic when I talk about where I live (I'm originally from Vancouver), and meant "coon" as meaning a "raccoon" rather than a perjorative for a black person. The expression "a coon's age" is an idiom that refers to the mistaken belief that raccoons live for a long time, and didn't even know that "coon" was a derrogatory term. Again, very sorry if I offended you; it was not intentional.
Not where I live (Regina, Saskatchewan). Haven't seen a used DC in a coon's age. But I'd love to buy a new one with a warranty, esp. for so cheap.
LOL! You're absolutely right... I was thinking about Ikaruga, but posted Radiant Silvergun... ;) Well, shows you how much *I* know!
For that cheap, I'd buy it today. Really hope this turns out to be true; what I wouldn't give to be able to legally play Radiant Silvergun!
I read the article, but still couldn't figure out why they're getting rid of the card. Does it simply cost too much to produce, and nobody's buying it? Is ATI giving them a run for their money, & they're forced to be more competitive? I can't figure out why they'd get rid of their top card. Can somebody please explain why this makes sense?
So what's the current reason for how the Big Bang came about, exactly? Interesting how it's being taught when there's no proof or explanation for how it began.
You're right: the reason that people like you oppose religion is because science is your god.
So the problem isn't religion, but organisation. Case in point: bureaucracies in democratic countries become corrupt not because they're in a democratic state, but because the nature of a bureaucracy naturally lends itself to corruption. A CEO of a company embezzles money because the nature of the organisation tolerates it, not because capitalism itself is "bad". Likewise, the bureaucracy that forms around larger religions allows corruption, not the religion itself.
Or are you honestly telling me that greed, power, abuse, and control of the weak by the evil are only found in organised religion? Time to wake up and smell the roses, my friend: religion isn't the problem. The problem is humanity itself.
I didn't claim that there was a hard and fast correlation between the decline of religious adherence and the rise of violent crime; I said that it was interesting that two might possibly be related. I've never read a single study or a report that supports this idea. Methinks you need to learn some critical reading skills, my son.
If you think that color TV is as beneficial to humanity as antibiotics and anasthesia, I think that discussions about evolution and God shouldn't be your biggest concern.
Well, like I said, all I've got is an interesting correlation rather than a cause-and-effect system. I won't pretend that I've got all the answers, so it's very possible that you're entirely right and I'm completely wrong ;)
Heh, nice link (2nd): "The only political party supporting drug legalization is the Libertarian Party (1-800-682-1776). I urge you to join us." They wouldn't have any discernable bias, now would they?
Your links don't preclude the possibility that the rise of drug use is related to the decline of religious adherence too...
The violent crime rate is higher; google "violent crime 20 years" and you'll see this. Religious adherence has also dropped, which can be proven just as easily. As I said, there's no overt link between the two, which is why I called the correlation "interesting" rather than "statistically significant."
Nice try. The word "indoctrinate" means "to teach doctrines to; teach uncritically." You can teach a doctrine of anti-religion just as easily as you can teach a religious doctrine.
Wow. I didn't realise it was so fashionable to attack religion these days. Go figure.
Religion *isn't* a problem, and hasn't ever been a problem any more than human greed or corruption has been. Or are you going to tell me that the cause of WWII, the conflict that killed more people than any two other wars in history, was caused by religion? That the atom bomb was created by religious fundamentalists?
More than 3 billion people on the planet belong to one religion or another. This number is on the decline, yet the crime rates in many countries around the world are skyrocketing. This is a very simple comparison, of course, and not necessarily correlative, but I find it somewhat fascinating that where religious adherence falls, crime rates shoot through the roof.
You're glad that this prof abused his position of power in order to attack an entire set of religious beliefs? You're glad that this prof essentially intended to indoctrinate his students against Christianity? (Hey, anti-Christians band the word "indoctrinate" all the time; it seems to me that attacking a set of beliefs rather than presenting them in a fair and mature way is the essence of indoctrination.)
"But when some jesus waving ignorant religious fanatic undermines hundreds of years of study with a good catch word, that pissed me off."
I'm not exactly a fan of ID either, but this kind of hateful rhetoric goes against everything the US stands for. Why is it acceptable to attack Christianity but not Judaism or Islam, for instance?
FTA:
You're telling me that a religious studies prof who says this could actually be anything *but* unprofessional? He apologised for his comments. The chancellor called them "repugnant and vile." But you're sitting there and defending them???
"While he may have been insensitive and overzealous, I see nothing wrong with a professor of religious studies having opinions about religious matters..."
There's having an opinion that you share with peers in private, and then there's having an "opinion" as an authority figure that you share with your students. Hint: it's not appropriate for a prof to disseminate what essentially amounts to hate speech to a group of students to whom this guy is an authority figure. Dollars to donuts that, if he didn't apologise, his tenure would be revoked and he'd be out of a job.
I know you're joking, but who reads slashdot for the submissions? I thought we were all here to read the comments, and maybe, just maybe, get that coveted +5 moderation.
No, he's absolutely right - but if only if you're talking about shirt sizes, not chromosomes. I mean, how else are you supposed to distinguish between gamers and devs at E3, for instance?
B&H Photo and Video (NY, NY) is a terrific store, both brick & mortar and online. If you're into camera supplies and refuse to buy from them, you're shooting yourself in the foot.