Boy are we ever. The Linux client that shipped with UT2k4 crashed constantly and we played it anyway. On the up side the performance was better than on windows and after they cleared up the initial issues it was tight as hell.
Mario Kart is not second tier. However Double Dash blows.
You are however correct, I was actually more thinking of the fourth year in relation to N64 (DK64) and third year for GameCube (wtf crap came out that year). My mistake.
Hey, it'd be The Right Move(tm) for Nintendo. Often they try to coast on a second or third party effort the third year out with maybe a second-tier first party game that they try to promote as first-tier.
I'm thinking a bit of an action/platform/brawler with a darker tone than Nintendo is usually known for and a serious difficulty level. But I could go for some classic side scrolling, too. I'm hoping for a new Ice Climbers, too. Maybe something where they use the ice picks to get an M rating.
That's not fair. Episode II was pretty good on IMAX. It's a pretty good action movie after they dropped 15 or 20 minutes. Can't even complain too much about Hayden Christensen too much, but then again they did cut most of his lines.
Hey, let's stay positive now. Maybe someone at Nintendo got a clue and decided that they should drop friend codes and add voice chat so they decided to delay the game since they won't be doing another Smash Brothers on Wii and want people to still be playing it a year from now.
It's interesting that you continue to argue with someone who, by your own belief, has no choice but to believe what he believes. It's not mere philosophy; it's the very core of your particular belief system. It seems almost as if you are beginning to question your faith.
Whether or not you have "free will" is a separate question from whether or not someone has a "choice." I'm not interested in whether there is "choice" since for practical applications it does not matter. The concept of "free will" is at best irrelevant. There is no question here, just as there is no "faith" but yours and that of the morons like you. Grow up.
The first, I agree, is a lack of options, assuming all possible evidence is available/detectable. The second is more involved. The fact that I can't see air, doesn't mean it isn't there. Making a decision when some evidence is missing is the very definition of "belief" or "faith."
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of air, regardless of if one can "see" it. Claiming that there is a god, for which there is no evidence, is "faith." Proposing that what exists now has always existed on the evidence that it has existed for as long as is knowable is an "assumption," and in this case the most plausible one. There is no evidence that the matter/energy/whatever you want to call the things "stuff" is made out of at any point did not exist, so we'll continue assuming that this has always been the case. If you think this is anything like "faith" or at all comparable to your argument from being a fucking moron that there must be a "god" you are even more stupid than you have already proven yourself to be. Again, grow up. Or at least get lost.
This sky-daddy of yours is intriguing. Is it Zeus? You may not have read the Bible, but I have, and someone has severely misinformed you about the things God enjoys if you think He enjoys punishing anyone.
Pick what ever stupid fairy tale you like, I don't give a fuck. They're all wrong. I implied the christian "god" because religious idiots on the Internet, like in the United States, are generally christian religious idiots. I'll forgive you for not having understood the bible, if you have even actually read it, as it is poorly plagiarized dreck and your reading abilities are likely somewhat equivalent to the low, low standard of your capability to think.
Basic matter existing is much more plausible than an extremely complex, intelligent magic super being. Assuming that the energy and matter of the universe always existed requires one assumption and raises no further questions. Your magic super being requires at least the one assumption and either a second (that such a thing, in direct contradiction to all evidence of the originals of all known intelligent beings) assumption that such a thing would just always have been there or raises even further questions as to where such a being came from.
Since we have to assume something or nothing, let's either assume the least outlandish claim (that everything has always been there) or accept that we will never know without making claims of the existence of imaginary bullshit. You are clearly wrong however and continuing to make a complete fool of yourself will not change that.
That you have no "free will" regarding belief in something stupid does not mean that you are not still wrong, which you are. Whether this means you have no "choice" is a philosophical question for which I have no interest.
You are also wrong to equate believing in something due to evidence or not believing in something due to a complete lack of evidence with "faith." This is neither "faith" nor a "belief."
That you seem to think the non-existence of "free will" would be a reason to avoid accountability speaks poorly of your moral values. This is of course to be expected of someone who calibrates their moral compass to a fairytale of a childish sky-daddy who enjoys punishing people for being the way he made them.
Because I care about what is and is not true and I don't like morons. I could make the "religious wars" argument, the "accountability" argument, the "national standing in the world" arguemnt, or likely dozens of others if I cared to. But I don't think it needs to go that far. These people are wrong and they are morons. You could argue that they don't really believe such bullshit (which could be true), and you're welcome to call them liars if you want. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am, however, not willing to let them go around in public spitting trash without being challenged and ridiculed as their "ideas" deserve. If you are that really is your fucking problem. You're welcome to shut the fuck up and be left alone whenever you'd like.
The concept of god is childish, at best, and in any case is completely unrealistic. Whether or not it makes people act "good" (it doesn't) is irrelevant. You talk about "fanatics" as if they are not merely degrees of the same mental illness. We don't need "god" and there's no reason to believe there is such a thing, so lets just move on and worry about things that actually do matter. Claiming that there is any more value in a deluded moron just because they aren't out in the streets killing people is ridiculous.
you don't think your existance is a good reason to at least contemplate it?
No, I don't. If you had any capability to think about it you wouldn't either.
The "good book" doesn't try to prove anything. Its a series of accounts, providing evidence (no I won't cite, feel free to read it yourself), of things that took place 2000+ years ago.
Accounts of events for which their is no supporting evidence. You clearly think that such fairy tales "prove" quite a bit. You are wrong.
And heres the thing - it answers key questions to what humankind seeks to find out.
Such as "is it ok to beat your slave if he doesn't die right away?" Spoiler: the answer is yes.
Whether you believe the evidence is there to support it, amongst other things, is a choice you make.
Thinking men have no choice in believing things for which there is no evidence supporting either the existence or implication of such. You either don't believe it or you don't think. You've obviously chosen poorly.
But I don't hear answers from any other quarter.
Humans seek to find out about a lot of things that don't exist. For the rest we have science, which actually does provide answers.
Your 747 quip makes no equivalent sense to me to what we're talking about.
Protip: it's something that does not exist and for which there is no evidence or implication that it does. Just like "god."
I always enjoy these conversations - its very interesting to see how much time and effort atheists put into these debates over something that "doesn't exist".
The debate concerns things that do not exist. The "debate" (spoiler: there is none) is "over" what is true.
Well, according to conventional physics, matter did not exist before the Big Bang.
False, physics does not speak to what came before the Big Bang because there is nothing left from that time to see. Any reasonable person can see that making the leap to there being nothing before then because we can't see it is a much more extraordinary claim than that the evidence of such existence has merely been destroyed by the event. So I'll stick with the idea that takes less extraordinary evidence since, in the face of no evidence whatsoever, it seems a lot more likely.
Regardless, everything has a cause, and just evading the question by assuming the causes are infinite is no more convincing than a gratuitous declaration that God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And your "god" would require a cause as well. As much of a needless argument as I believe it to be, you are creating more questions without answering anything by saying that "god did it." Since an infinite regress is almost assuredly impossible let's just stick with something that is possible, namely that everything that exists just does and that there was no "creator."
You seem to treat the non-existence of God as self-evident, but it is not only not self-evident, but it is hard to conceive of existence without some sort of Uncaused First Cause.
It might be hard for you to conceive of existence without a first cause because you lack imagination, intelligence, or both. In either case, what you find "hard to conceive of" has no impact on what is and is not true. Again, your "first cause" requires an additional first cause to have caused it. My lack of first cause requires no such thing. Reasonable people, when confronted with a vacuum of evidence, will clearly agree that my position is more plausible.
Also, parroting my criticisms of your post back to me almost verbatim isn't very original or entertaining. Good trolls have a sense of humor. You're just angry. You'd better avoid salt and fried foods.
It has been clear from the first that you are just a fucking moron. What isn't clear is why you won't let it go.
1) Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing. Like the relationship between a liquid and a gas. Converting matter into energy does not destroy it, just as condensing energy into mass does not create matter.
2) No one has any evidence that the universe (being existence, not the current configuration of galaxies and whatnot) because it is impossible to see anything prior to the big bang. There is however no reason to believe that nothing existed prior to the big bang. Without a considerable amount of evidence (of which there is currently ZERO) that is an absurd claim to make.
3) While I'm sure it's not hard for you to name someone smarter than you, you will not be able to name one who has evidence of what did or did not exist prior to 15 billion years ago. That everything spontaneously came into being at some point is far less probable than that everything was already just there, so we'll stick with that while you work on the impossible task of proving otherwise.
So Shadow of the Colossus still runs super framey? When they dropped the EE from North American PS3s it made me a whole lot less likely to buy one. I would have gotten one before they all sold out if it were $250 or maybe even $300, but no way at $500.
What makes you think that it came from anywhere, troll? Because your imperfectly evolved brain feels the need to anthropomorphize everything and you lack the intelligence and imagination to overcome that? To the best of anyone's knowledge you can not destroy matter, so what would lead you to believe that anything can create it?
The default assumption should be that the matter of the universe has always been there until there is any sort of evidence to the contrary. Try harder next time you try to troll, though you'd do better by not starting out with a moronic premise.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for the new one, but the original Metroid Prime isn't much of a shooter at all. But somehow I doubt that you have played it.
Boy are we ever. The Linux client that shipped with UT2k4 crashed constantly and we played it anyway. On the up side the performance was better than on windows and after they cleared up the initial issues it was tight as hell.
Now where the fuck is our editor?!!
Oh man, this isn't going to end well. If anyone starts weighing the value of the content being hosted 99% of the Internet will be rated as wasteful.
I like it!
Mario Kart is not second tier. However Double Dash blows.
You are however correct, I was actually more thinking of the fourth year in relation to N64 (DK64) and third year for GameCube (wtf crap came out that year). My mistake.
Don't forget My Jade Empire, the cutesy, super-deformed, waggle-controlled spin-off for Wii.
Hey, it'd be The Right Move(tm) for Nintendo. Often they try to coast on a second or third party effort the third year out with maybe a second-tier first party game that they try to promote as first-tier.
I'm thinking a bit of an action/platform/brawler with a darker tone than Nintendo is usually known for and a serious difficulty level. But I could go for some classic side scrolling, too. I'm hoping for a new Ice Climbers, too. Maybe something where they use the ice picks to get an M rating.
That's not fair. Episode II was pretty good on IMAX. It's a pretty good action movie after they dropped 15 or 20 minutes. Can't even complain too much about Hayden Christensen too much, but then again they did cut most of his lines.
Third holiday on a Nintendo console, dude. They ain't going to have shit. But maybe if we all hope hard enough we'll get a killer Kid Icarus relaunch.
Hey, let's stay positive now. Maybe someone at Nintendo got a clue and decided that they should drop friend codes and add voice chat so they decided to delay the game since they won't be doing another Smash Brothers on Wii and want people to still be playing it a year from now.
Forget Sonic! What Sega fans really want can be summed up in two words: Segata Sanshiro?
It's interesting that you continue to argue with someone who, by your own belief, has no choice but to believe what he believes. It's not mere philosophy; it's the very core of your particular belief system. It seems almost as if you are beginning to question your faith.
Whether or not you have "free will" is a separate question from whether or not someone has a "choice." I'm not interested in whether there is "choice" since for practical applications it does not matter. The concept of "free will" is at best irrelevant. There is no question here, just as there is no "faith" but yours and that of the morons like you. Grow up.
The first, I agree, is a lack of options, assuming all possible evidence is available/detectable. The second is more involved. The fact that I can't see air, doesn't mean it isn't there. Making a decision when some evidence is missing is the very definition of "belief" or "faith."
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of air, regardless of if one can "see" it. Claiming that there is a god, for which there is no evidence, is "faith." Proposing that what exists now has always existed on the evidence that it has existed for as long as is knowable is an "assumption," and in this case the most plausible one. There is no evidence that the matter/energy/whatever you want to call the things "stuff" is made out of at any point did not exist, so we'll continue assuming that this has always been the case. If you think this is anything like "faith" or at all comparable to your argument from being a fucking moron that there must be a "god" you are even more stupid than you have already proven yourself to be. Again, grow up. Or at least get lost.
This sky-daddy of yours is intriguing. Is it Zeus?
You may not have read the Bible, but I have, and someone has severely misinformed you about the things God enjoys if you think He enjoys punishing anyone.
Pick what ever stupid fairy tale you like, I don't give a fuck. They're all wrong. I implied the christian "god" because religious idiots on the Internet, like in the United States, are generally christian religious idiots. I'll forgive you for not having understood the bible, if you have even actually read it, as it is poorly plagiarized dreck and your reading abilities are likely somewhat equivalent to the low, low standard of your capability to think.
Basic matter existing is much more plausible than an extremely complex, intelligent magic super being. Assuming that the energy and matter of the universe always existed requires one assumption and raises no further questions. Your magic super being requires at least the one assumption and either a second (that such a thing, in direct contradiction to all evidence of the originals of all known intelligent beings) assumption that such a thing would just always have been there or raises even further questions as to where such a being came from.
Since we have to assume something or nothing, let's either assume the least outlandish claim (that everything has always been there) or accept that we will never know without making claims of the existence of imaginary bullshit. You are clearly wrong however and continuing to make a complete fool of yourself will not change that.
That you have no "free will" regarding belief in something stupid does not mean that you are not still wrong, which you are. Whether this means you have no "choice" is a philosophical question for which I have no interest.
You are also wrong to equate believing in something due to evidence or not believing in something due to a complete lack of evidence with "faith." This is neither "faith" nor a "belief."
That you seem to think the non-existence of "free will" would be a reason to avoid accountability speaks poorly of your moral values. This is of course to be expected of someone who calibrates their moral compass to a fairytale of a childish sky-daddy who enjoys punishing people for being the way he made them.
Actually, it'd be more like GMail being a bad name because it brings to mind gtk or, even worse, gnome.
So is KSpread finally going to get cell freezing?
Because I care about what is and is not true and I don't like morons. I could make the "religious wars" argument, the "accountability" argument, the "national standing in the world" arguemnt, or likely dozens of others if I cared to. But I don't think it needs to go that far. These people are wrong and they are morons. You could argue that they don't really believe such bullshit (which could be true), and you're welcome to call them liars if you want. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I am, however, not willing to let them go around in public spitting trash without being challenged and ridiculed as their "ideas" deserve. If you are that really is your fucking problem. You're welcome to shut the fuck up and be left alone whenever you'd like.
We realize that no matter how many mysteries of the mind are answered by science it can't overcome the basic irrationality of religion.
You might be right. But it sure is a sad thought...
The concept of god is childish, at best, and in any case is completely unrealistic. Whether or not it makes people act "good" (it doesn't) is irrelevant. You talk about "fanatics" as if they are not merely degrees of the same mental illness. We don't need "god" and there's no reason to believe there is such a thing, so lets just move on and worry about things that actually do matter. Claiming that there is any more value in a deluded moron just because they aren't out in the streets killing people is ridiculous.
you don't think your existance is a good reason to at least contemplate it?
No, I don't. If you had any capability to think about it you wouldn't either.
The "good book" doesn't try to prove anything. Its a series of accounts, providing evidence (no I won't cite, feel free to read it yourself), of things that took place 2000+ years ago.
Accounts of events for which their is no supporting evidence. You clearly think that such fairy tales "prove" quite a bit. You are wrong.
And heres the thing - it answers key questions to what humankind seeks to find out.
Such as "is it ok to beat your slave if he doesn't die right away?" Spoiler: the answer is yes.
Whether you believe the evidence is there to support it, amongst other things, is a choice you make.
Thinking men have no choice in believing things for which there is no evidence supporting either the existence or implication of such. You either don't believe it or you don't think. You've obviously chosen poorly.
But I don't hear answers from any other quarter.
Humans seek to find out about a lot of things that don't exist. For the rest we have science, which actually does provide answers.
Your 747 quip makes no equivalent sense to me to what we're talking about.
Protip: it's something that does not exist and for which there is no evidence or implication that it does. Just like "god."
I always enjoy these conversations - its very interesting to see how much time and effort atheists put into these debates over something that "doesn't exist".
The debate concerns things that do not exist. The "debate" (spoiler: there is none) is "over" what is true.
Well, according to conventional physics, matter did not exist before the Big Bang.
False, physics does not speak to what came before the Big Bang because there is nothing left from that time to see. Any reasonable person can see that making the leap to there being nothing before then because we can't see it is a much more extraordinary claim than that the evidence of such existence has merely been destroyed by the event. So I'll stick with the idea that takes less extraordinary evidence since, in the face of no evidence whatsoever, it seems a lot more likely.
Regardless, everything has a cause, and just evading the question by assuming the causes are infinite is no more convincing than a gratuitous declaration that God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And your "god" would require a cause as well. As much of a needless argument as I believe it to be, you are creating more questions without answering anything by saying that "god did it." Since an infinite regress is almost assuredly impossible let's just stick with something that is possible, namely that everything that exists just does and that there was no "creator."
You seem to treat the non-existence of God as self-evident, but it is not only not self-evident, but it is hard to conceive of existence without some sort of Uncaused First Cause.
It might be hard for you to conceive of existence without a first cause because you lack imagination, intelligence, or both. In either case, what you find "hard to conceive of" has no impact on what is and is not true. Again, your "first cause" requires an additional first cause to have caused it. My lack of first cause requires no such thing. Reasonable people, when confronted with a vacuum of evidence, will clearly agree that my position is more plausible.
Also, parroting my criticisms of your post back to me almost verbatim isn't very original or entertaining. Good trolls have a sense of humor. You're just angry. You'd better avoid salt and fried foods.
It has been clear from the first that you are just a fucking moron. What isn't clear is why you won't let it go.
1) Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing. Like the relationship between a liquid and a gas. Converting matter into energy does not destroy it, just as condensing energy into mass does not create matter.
2) No one has any evidence that the universe (being existence, not the current configuration of galaxies and whatnot) because it is impossible to see anything prior to the big bang. There is however no reason to believe that nothing existed prior to the big bang. Without a considerable amount of evidence (of which there is currently ZERO) that is an absurd claim to make.
3) While I'm sure it's not hard for you to name someone smarter than you, you will not be able to name one who has evidence of what did or did not exist prior to 15 billion years ago. That everything spontaneously came into being at some point is far less probable than that everything was already just there, so we'll stick with that while you work on the impossible task of proving otherwise.
So Shadow of the Colossus still runs super framey? When they dropped the EE from North American PS3s it made me a whole lot less likely to buy one. I would have gotten one before they all sold out if it were $250 or maybe even $300, but no way at $500.
Matter exists. Where did it come from?
What makes you think that it came from anywhere, troll? Because your imperfectly evolved brain feels the need to anthropomorphize everything and you lack the intelligence and imagination to overcome that? To the best of anyone's knowledge you can not destroy matter, so what would lead you to believe that anything can create it?
The default assumption should be that the matter of the universe has always been there until there is any sort of evidence to the contrary. Try harder next time you try to troll, though you'd do better by not starting out with a moronic premise.
I apologize. I think that I clicked on the wrong reply to link.