Ratchet & Clank is one of those rare games. Most games use the camera control to manipulate where the camera is looking (this started on Playstation in 1995 and just about everyone defaults to this now) rather than the position of the camera. I'm pretty sure this is why the GP didn't like it.
While none of that is ever going to happen, I don't think you could even disprove natural selection on any level. Things that survive to reproduce have offspring and things that don't survive to reproduce don't have offspring, that's kind of bulletproof.
It's make believe, much like CSI. There is in fact NO study of ANYTHING on the creationist side. The closest they get to studying or researching anything is quote mining respectable, thoughtful people for words that they can take out of context to "prove" some ridiculous point that is so absurd as to not even credit consideration.
Science is the study of things that are real, that should be all the "review" of religion anyone should need. Let's stop calling this "faith" and call it what it is: make believe.
You're right, I do get my Slackware from bittorrent. But only because I want to help out with the distribution, otherwise I'd just go ftp.
And I don't think I was ever claiming that mac was as bad as windows (unless you're playing games, I actually don't think it is) but to call it a "nice unix system" is going way too far in my opinion. As far as having a user interface that I like, however, it falls right in there with windows and I'll happily lump them in together. I'd prefer to use neither and would really hate to be paying for the "privilege."
But let it be known, if I DID have to use one and was required to pay for it, yeah, I'd buy a mac. I'd have to be in the market for something like Shake (or at least how it was 2 years ago) though since you could basically get two macs and the copy of Shake (with free render nodes) for the price of the software alone on Linux. Which would have been a shame if I'd ever needed to buy it since Shake is sweet. That kind of crap out of apple is another reason not to want to support them. But I still can't believe people are arguing over who pays fewer hundreds of dollars to use these systems, ick.
How the fuck can you possibly believe that? If it wasn't biological in basis it would-not-happen. Period.
It isn't even difficult to conceive how this could have positive selective advantages, despite homosexuals generally not reproducing and them being unable to reproduce with each other. Perhaps, just for example, a male with homosexual brothers has an increased advantage in reproducing due to limited competition from his brothers. In a small group this is totally plausible, and maybe even likely. Or maybe it's just a common side effect of the fact that there is no master plan for the universe and things just happen to work out that way, but since the occurrence is not high enough to prevent the species (ours as well as many others) from reproducing it just hasn't been selected out.
But to claim it is somehow "not biological" (so what is it, magic?) is fucking ridiculous. I stopped reading your post after the second paragraph because you basically sound useless.
Damn, you guys actually pay for your OS? I know you guys don't have the high standards that I do (clearly, you're running windows and mac), but to pay for it!??! INSANE!
And actually, science DOES support descent from, probably hairier, apes to the modern, mostly-hairless apes that we are today. All via fucking since our ancestors (probably hundreds of millions of years ago in our case) lost the ability to reproduce asexually. If you think that is any sort of argument of "something from nothing" you are profoundly stupid. The only people who argue for the magic occurrence of "something from nothing" are you religionists with your creation bedtime stories. That includes all you creationists, regardless of how old you think the universe is.
It's time to fucking grow up, children. And if you can't, keep your mouths shut and let the adults do the talking.
If an agnostic/atheist had proof of a deity in front of them, how many would change their mind?
What would such "proof" even look like? It's impossible for such "evidence" to exist, just think about it for a moment. Even if a magic hole opened in the sky and a huge, bearded sky-daddy stepped out and told us that he made us and then proceeded to demonstrate before our eyes how it was done this would do nothing other than raise the question of where and what said super being came from. There is, however, no evidence that such a magic creature exists, and to presume that such a thing even COULD exist requires accepting that it is possible for something to have always existed, at which point you're just arguing absurdities since if a magic intelligent being could always have existed then clearly all mass-energy in the universe could have too, and the latter is a near-infinite order of magnitude more probable. You clearly are lacking the ability of imagination to conceive of something beyond your own finite, linear nature. I really hope it is for lack of trying on your part and not because your brain is insufficient for the task.
While I'm far from perfect, the drive for self-improvement stems in part FROM those beliefs.
So you'll admit that atheists are superior to yourself because most of us can find a drive for self-improvement without feeling threatened into doing so by an imaginary friend or some fraudster in a nightgown and funny hat? Really, statements like yours show an amazing lack of character, moral or otherwise.
I may not necessarily follow "standard" Christian thinking as far as the birth of the universe. Don't lump me in with fanatics, and I'll try my hardest to avoid the same.
Believing in something without evidence, or even the possibility of such evidence, is extremely fanatical. Claiming not to know about something of this nature (the agnostic position) is pretty extreme itself. Would ANYONE claim to be "Santa Claus agnostic" just because they can't prove that a jolly fat man living in an invisible (and otherwise undetectable) village at the north pole doesn't use his invisible magic powers to cause parents to buy christmas presents for their children, wrap them up in special paper, and write "from Santa" on them? No, of course not! But even a "Santa Claus agnostic" makes more sense than theists or agnostics, because children actually do receive gifts in special wrap with tags saying "from Santa," and that's more evidence than anyone has ever had for a "god" of any sort.
So let me be the first to say it to you, assuming that no one has before, that you are in fact a fanatic of the highest order and the only difference between you and someone who blows themselves up believing that they will get 72 virgins is that you have not yet blown yourself up. And before you try to whine that I'm just calling names why don't you take the time to "prove" that you aren't, since proving negatives is such an important thing to you.
I came from my parents fucking, just like everyone who wasn't spun in a tube. If you think that I claimed to come from nothing you are even more gravely stupid than your writing makes you sound.
I subscribe to the "creation theory" that there was no "creation." The evidence all points in this direction and requires no "faith" to believe. There is no "why" in this equation and very likely not even a "how."
Yeah, I guess it's better than nothing that he's willing to share the source with serious developers, and as someone else said he'd likely release it if he were going to drop the project. But that's still no guarantee and likely he'd just forget about it.
And I've actually used PSX emulators to play my legit PSX games, despite having a PS3 (and a PSX and PS2 that are indefinite loan to my brother). Mostly for the save states, something Sony REALLY should have implemented with for PSX games on PS3.
Or how insanely crappy and directx-bound Valve made the Source engine. Not that it would necessarily fix all the porting issues, but if Valve built their games cross-platform to begin with they'd DEFINITELY have fewer problems deploying on new systems, even if a third party is handling the port. As an added benefit they'd end up with better running code on the lead platform as well.
buy cheap knockoffs shoes made by child slave labor in some foreign country that your sure you never heard of or at least cannot pronounce the name correctly if you have, or get gouged at retail prices?
The name brand is probably made by child slave labor in the same country, so what's your point? That we can all make "fun of you" for not realizing this?
Fuck RMS and fuck you too, asshole coward. PSX emulators should be open sourced because the authors tend to drop the projects before they're complete and then everyone loses. That should be good enough reason to open source for anyone. You clearly don't agree with your own idiotic statements because you aren't willing to put your troll on the record. Get lost.
That's your OPINION. If you have undeniable proof otherwise, feel free to present it. Many of the spiritual ilk believe your opinions are garbage as well...but once again, that's all it is: an opinion.
In the absence of any evidence FOR such beliefs it's pretty safe to assume that there is not even a question there to be asked. What deluded children think is of no concern to me.
Slamming my belief set without presenting evidence to the contrary isn't very scientific, Spanky...
There is no evidence for your "belief set", and furthermore there is no evidence that anything to support your delusions COULD exist.
This is what drives me nuts about fanatics on both sides of this coin: they're convinced that they somehow MUST have the key to life that the rest of us "are missing..", tend towards the snide side, and resort to name-calling when "you don't get it..."
So not believing in Santa Claus makes one a "fanatic"? Get the fuck out. The fanatical position in the farce that passes for a "debate" between religion and reality is firmly on the side of delusional "believers" and their "agnostic" apologists. The former claims the existence of something in which there is no reason whatsoever to believe, the latter arguing that the appropriate position to take is that you just can't know if there's a jolly fat man living at the north pole who distributes presents to every child in the world on December 24th.
If you think anything you said rises above the level of complete rubbish you truly are a moron, and there's no reason not to call you and your kind out for what you are. If it makes you cry yourself to sleep at night because you are such a fool that is none of my problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Ratchet & Clank is one of those rare games. Most games use the camera control to manipulate where the camera is looking (this started on Playstation in 1995 and just about everyone defaults to this now) rather than the position of the camera. I'm pretty sure this is why the GP didn't like it.
Does this mean that there may soon be enough zunes out there to get someone working to port rockbox? Because that might make the zune not suck.
While none of that is ever going to happen, I don't think you could even disprove natural selection on any level. Things that survive to reproduce have offspring and things that don't survive to reproduce don't have offspring, that's kind of bulletproof.
It's make believe, much like CSI. There is in fact NO study of ANYTHING on the creationist side. The closest they get to studying or researching anything is quote mining respectable, thoughtful people for words that they can take out of context to "prove" some ridiculous point that is so absurd as to not even credit consideration.
Science is the study of things that are real, that should be all the "review" of religion anyone should need. Let's stop calling this "faith" and call it what it is: make believe.
Is it a regular horse or a goatse horse? If the latter, does he ride it backwards for maximum effect or forward to cover his retreat?
I always like the Yugioh game that my nephew had, rated "E for violence."
You're right, I do get my Slackware from bittorrent. But only because I want to help out with the distribution, otherwise I'd just go ftp.
And I don't think I was ever claiming that mac was as bad as windows (unless you're playing games, I actually don't think it is) but to call it a "nice unix system" is going way too far in my opinion. As far as having a user interface that I like, however, it falls right in there with windows and I'll happily lump them in together. I'd prefer to use neither and would really hate to be paying for the "privilege."
But let it be known, if I DID have to use one and was required to pay for it, yeah, I'd buy a mac. I'd have to be in the market for something like Shake (or at least how it was 2 years ago) though since you could basically get two macs and the copy of Shake (with free render nodes) for the price of the software alone on Linux. Which would have been a shame if I'd ever needed to buy it since Shake is sweet. That kind of crap out of apple is another reason not to want to support them. But I still can't believe people are arguing over who pays fewer hundreds of dollars to use these systems, ick.
Homosexuality isn't biological in basis.
How the fuck can you possibly believe that? If it wasn't biological in basis it would-not-happen. Period.
It isn't even difficult to conceive how this could have positive selective advantages, despite homosexuals generally not reproducing and them being unable to reproduce with each other. Perhaps, just for example, a male with homosexual brothers has an increased advantage in reproducing due to limited competition from his brothers. In a small group this is totally plausible, and maybe even likely. Or maybe it's just a common side effect of the fact that there is no master plan for the universe and things just happen to work out that way, but since the occurrence is not high enough to prevent the species (ours as well as many others) from reproducing it just hasn't been selected out.
But to claim it is somehow "not biological" (so what is it, magic?) is fucking ridiculous. I stopped reading your post after the second paragraph because you basically sound useless.
I'm the only person in America who is PRO-abortion. Democrats are pro-CHOICE, look into it.
Damn, you guys actually pay for your OS? I know you guys don't have the high standards that I do (clearly, you're running windows and mac), but to pay for it!??! INSANE!
It isn't Mountain Dew and Cheetos anymore?!?!
Oh, stupid me.
There, fixed that for you.
And actually, science DOES support descent from, probably hairier, apes to the modern, mostly-hairless apes that we are today. All via fucking since our ancestors (probably hundreds of millions of years ago in our case) lost the ability to reproduce asexually. If you think that is any sort of argument of "something from nothing" you are profoundly stupid. The only people who argue for the magic occurrence of "something from nothing" are you religionists with your creation bedtime stories. That includes all you creationists, regardless of how old you think the universe is.
It's time to fucking grow up, children. And if you can't, keep your mouths shut and let the adults do the talking.
If an agnostic/atheist had proof of a deity in front of them, how many would change their mind?
What would such "proof" even look like? It's impossible for such "evidence" to exist, just think about it for a moment. Even if a magic hole opened in the sky and a huge, bearded sky-daddy stepped out and told us that he made us and then proceeded to demonstrate before our eyes how it was done this would do nothing other than raise the question of where and what said super being came from. There is, however, no evidence that such a magic creature exists, and to presume that such a thing even COULD exist requires accepting that it is possible for something to have always existed, at which point you're just arguing absurdities since if a magic intelligent being could always have existed then clearly all mass-energy in the universe could have too, and the latter is a near-infinite order of magnitude more probable. You clearly are lacking the ability of imagination to conceive of something beyond your own finite, linear nature. I really hope it is for lack of trying on your part and not because your brain is insufficient for the task.
While I'm far from perfect, the drive for self-improvement stems in part FROM those beliefs.
So you'll admit that atheists are superior to yourself because most of us can find a drive for self-improvement without feeling threatened into doing so by an imaginary friend or some fraudster in a nightgown and funny hat? Really, statements like yours show an amazing lack of character, moral or otherwise.
I may not necessarily follow "standard" Christian thinking as far as the birth of the universe. Don't lump me in with fanatics, and I'll try my hardest to avoid the same.
Believing in something without evidence, or even the possibility of such evidence, is extremely fanatical. Claiming not to know about something of this nature (the agnostic position) is pretty extreme itself. Would ANYONE claim to be "Santa Claus agnostic" just because they can't prove that a jolly fat man living in an invisible (and otherwise undetectable) village at the north pole doesn't use his invisible magic powers to cause parents to buy christmas presents for their children, wrap them up in special paper, and write "from Santa" on them? No, of course not! But even a "Santa Claus agnostic" makes more sense than theists or agnostics, because children actually do receive gifts in special wrap with tags saying "from Santa," and that's more evidence than anyone has ever had for a "god" of any sort.
So let me be the first to say it to you, assuming that no one has before, that you are in fact a fanatic of the highest order and the only difference between you and someone who blows themselves up believing that they will get 72 virgins is that you have not yet blown yourself up. And before you try to whine that I'm just calling names why don't you take the time to "prove" that you aren't, since proving negatives is such an important thing to you.
I came from my parents fucking, just like everyone who wasn't spun in a tube. If you think that I claimed to come from nothing you are even more gravely stupid than your writing makes you sound.
I subscribe to the "creation theory" that there was no "creation." The evidence all points in this direction and requires no "faith" to believe. There is no "why" in this equation and very likely not even a "how."
Yeah, I guess it's better than nothing that he's willing to share the source with serious developers, and as someone else said he'd likely release it if he were going to drop the project. But that's still no guarantee and likely he'd just forget about it.
And I've actually used PSX emulators to play my legit PSX games, despite having a PS3 (and a PSX and PS2 that are indefinite loan to my brother). Mostly for the save states, something Sony REALLY should have implemented with for PSX games on PS3.
Or how insanely crappy and directx-bound Valve made the Source engine. Not that it would necessarily fix all the porting issues, but if Valve built their games cross-platform to begin with they'd DEFINITELY have fewer problems deploying on new systems, even if a third party is handling the port. As an added benefit they'd end up with better running code on the lead platform as well.
Black? Orange? I thought xbox 360 was white...
Don't forget the Super Star mode where you get to play any position in the game, including the head crab or crowbar!
buy cheap knockoffs shoes made by child slave labor in some foreign country that your sure you never heard of or at least cannot pronounce the name correctly if you have, or get gouged at retail prices?
The name brand is probably made by child slave labor in the same country, so what's your point? That we can all make "fun of you" for not realizing this?
Fuck RMS and fuck you too, asshole coward. PSX emulators should be open sourced because the authors tend to drop the projects before they're complete and then everyone loses. That should be good enough reason to open source for anyone. You clearly don't agree with your own idiotic statements because you aren't willing to put your troll on the record. Get lost.
The summary says they're sold out, so no.
That's your OPINION. If you have undeniable proof otherwise, feel free to present it. Many of the spiritual ilk believe your opinions are garbage as well...but once again, that's all it is: an opinion.
In the absence of any evidence FOR such beliefs it's pretty safe to assume that there is not even a question there to be asked. What deluded children think is of no concern to me.
Slamming my belief set without presenting evidence to the contrary isn't very scientific, Spanky...
There is no evidence for your "belief set", and furthermore there is no evidence that anything to support your delusions COULD exist.
This is what drives me nuts about fanatics on both sides of this coin: they're convinced that they somehow MUST have the key to life that the rest of us "are missing..", tend towards the snide side, and resort to name-calling when "you don't get it..."
So not believing in Santa Claus makes one a "fanatic"? Get the fuck out. The fanatical position in the farce that passes for a "debate" between religion and reality is firmly on the side of delusional "believers" and their "agnostic" apologists. The former claims the existence of something in which there is no reason whatsoever to believe, the latter arguing that the appropriate position to take is that you just can't know if there's a jolly fat man living at the north pole who distributes presents to every child in the world on December 24th.
If you think anything you said rises above the level of complete rubbish you truly are a moron, and there's no reason not to call you and your kind out for what you are. If it makes you cry yourself to sleep at night because you are such a fool that is none of my problem.
Where's the source?