If pretty much any piece of Windows malware was to run (theoretical comparison) on *nix, EVERYTHING would be OK. Almost no malware out there actually mucks with the user's files, so a restore here is an increedibly simple procedure, and miles better than the Windows "reformat and probably lose everything" option.
And to be completely honest, I feel that people pirating games are unprincipled. If a publisher has done something you're not happy with, let's say introducing draconian DRM, the solution is simple. Don't touch the damn game. That sends a much clearer message than pirating.
...actually, very much so. Especially on older, out-of-print games. The only way to play Radiant Silvergun, for example, is to pirate it off of torrents with almost no seeders... or buy a copy used for at least $170 USD.
We have a phenomenon. People are observing something. It doesn't make sense to a priori decide that what they are seeing is false or merely a product of their own minds.
Sure. Let's start from there. Now, people are seeing things. So, if not merely the product of our minds, where is it coming from? Spirits of the dead? That seems to be what you want it to be, so sure. Now, how do we test this? Where are these spirits? How do they exist? How do we measure them? Is there any way to reproduce this?
Without at least some of those, there's no way the process we call 'science' can even touch this. How could it? Without resorting to inherently flawed methods, there isn't a reasonable way to test this. And, without any way to test it, science isn't the answer.
Yup, that's the problem. You ASSUME you know what reality is, and then go on to not even attempt to measure what you consider outside your reality - even when confronted with experiential evidence!
Measure? How? If you can give me even one way to "measure" this, I might be convinced.
And, "experiental evidence"? Please. It's called "anecdotal", and it's not considered "evidence" by any sense of a word except in a court of law, and even then it's been shown people's memories of incidents can be changed and molded by reinforcement of those around then. A spot in the corner of your eye might quickly turn into ghosts in your house due to the culture about it.
I mean, are schizophrenics really talking to God? Does Terence McKenna having seen "machine elves" on DMT mean that they likely exist? Are the spots I see when I close my eyes messages from another plane of existence? Lacking any real evidence for any of these (and no, people's "experience" is far from real evidence; you can't measure it, it's illogical, random, and malleable), there's no reason to even bother. It's not as if "science" (as if science is some giant committee) is actively denying these things (well, some scientists are, but anyways), it's more that they can't measure it and there's no real, physical evidence that would point even marginally to trying to figure it out.
I'm not saying it's impossible. Before Einstein came around, everyone "knew" that there was nothing more to know in physics. Physics was done. And I'm not saying that science is perfect - look at string theory (how it's also rather untestable) and how much flak it gets and how religiously people defend it. However saying "people see things, so therefore there's a good chance it's real" is beyond silly. The human mind is so good at making things "fit" and changing its own perceptions that anecdotes become almost worthless. If you really don't believe me, read up on people's bias with random number generators. People will believe without a doubt that something completely random is somehow biased for or against them, despite that being completely untrue. That you think we can rely on people's experiences as evidence for "ghosts" means you, honestly, don't know that much about what goes on in the scientific world. It's easy to be an armchair commentator, though.
Have fun failing to get grant money (or succeding at all, really) for basing your hypothesis on wild speculation instead of ANY basis in fact or reality. Science isn't a bunch of people going "huh I wonder". If they had any reason to believe it was "ghosts", it would be based on something other than a bunch of superstitions.
And how, exactly, would one go about detecting a "ghost"? I doubt you could even define what that is, let alone what device/spectrum/way that you could even think of detecting it (read: because it's not real). Other than just running brain scans to see that these people (almost certainly) are just hallucinating.
I wish there were ghosts too. And aliens. And psychics. It'd make the world a lot more interesting. But we're talking about reality here. Or so I assumed.
More like "There's about zero pieces of evidence for ghosts, so until some comes up, or someone comes up with a testable hypothesis, we're going to ignore it."
People love to ignore the "testable" part when using hyperbole to bash science.
Actually, the adaptability of the human brain radically decreases as you get older, starting from a very young age even. Compare (for instance) language learning ability across age groups, and you'll see that people have a significantly harder time the older they start. So, yes, I would imagine by the time you're 70 or 80, your adaptability to something like this is orders of magnitude smaller than when you were 20 or even 40.
It works more like this. In people's minds, PC == IBM PC. Since Macintosh computers used to not x86-based, they weren't IBM-PC compatible, and thus != PC. It's bad terminology, but that's where it comes from. Sadly, it hasn't fallen out of style.
There were two ways to do that. One was to politely point it out, and one was to act like a douche. For whatever reason, you chose the second. Next time, try the first. People will respond better. Even though this is the internet.
Greater is an ambiguous word in English. More numerous? Probably similarities. More important? Definitely differences, especially in today's global world. No war was ever stopped because the leaders got together and realized they both love their wives the same way (they probably don't anyways). Etcetera.
What's interesting about this discourse is that you haven't really been arguing against me. You've been arguing against a strawman of your own creation that, while having arguments similar to mine, they are inevitably not. I assume this comes from your steadfast belief that you are right in all circumstances (as evidenced by reading what YOU want to into my arguments and your constant stream of insults). You have won the argument, but only against somebody who doesn't exist. This one, my friend, you are grasping in.
I also find it rather interesting that your original post claims that we must eliminate tribalism: something that has popped up in every culture worldwide. Meaning it's part of human nature. By asking to kill off a part of human nature, you've shown me, quite clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
as such, our cultural differences are simply cruft. in every culture of every society that has ever existed are mean people, thoughtful people, madmen, philosophers, ascetic monks, etc. the range of human existence is writ small in every town in every nation now and forever
Sure. You get broad and generic enough, and yes, there are plenty of human similarities that appear.
you say otherwise
No. I never said that. I have only said that the similarities are not as wide reaching as you have claimed. People are dying every day because of cultural differences. But I suppose you'd just argue that differences are merely a part of human existence. (a bit of broken logic there, hmm).
and i asked you to give me an example where some aspect of culture is somehow of fundamental import, and you can't find one single example
You used Japan specifically, and claim that I somehow can't think of anything globally. See how that works? In addition, your original question could be paraphrased this way: "if you wish to dispel the utter contempt in which i hold you, prove your case: argue for something that is not only impossible to argue for, is not something you were arguing in the first place." But go ahead and ignore that sentence too.
you lose. not that it expect you to admit that. but you shouldn't fancy yourself a worldly or cosmopolitan person anymore. you're not
Oh yes, you've got me here. Because I refuse to believe that there's no difference between anyone on the planet, I'm a backwater freak. I would rather celebrate the differences than claim we're all the same. I know that I am dreadfully like other people, and that people in most countries live their lives similarly to mine. But, as I've been saying but you've been ignoring, those similarities are not what drives the world. They're ignored because we ARE the same. Why would one point that out? It's a dreary existance, thinking that every new person you meet won't be new at all, but simply more of that same human stuff. It's more how humanity is expressed differently that makes us truly interesting creatures. But if you want to call that "cruft", then I don't think our minds can meet on this issue.
if you wish to dispel the utter contempt in which i hold you
Wow, just wow. Not only have you refused to actually read my argument properly, you've taken it the wrong way and apparently think I'm someone worthy of hating (on the internet no less). Absolutely incredible. I expected better.
I don't know why you're stuck on Japanese vs American culture (it seems you're assuming I haven't seen any other part of the world), but I'm not going to bite your troll attempt. I've said that, yes, we're all very similar. But trying to ignore that or consider it unimportant is far worse. You'll also note I never actually said the similarities were unimportant - just that they aren't noticed. Re-read my last post and don't parse "The scope of which one is larger is actually unimportant - the similarities are actually so low-level that they are largely ignored." as "Unimportant... low-level... ignored.". That would be a mistake.
(And since you'll probably not let me off the hook on this, let me say "system on honorifics" and "Pre-Meiji Japan" to use that country alone as an example. Completetly foriegn and alien to American culture? You'd better believe it. They're still people, of course.)
Good job, you listed a series of basic human traits. In other words, you agree with me, but don't believe you do. Just think about it again: the base of humans is identical across the board, but culture is what is added on top of that. The scope of which one is larger is actually unimportant - the similarities are actually so low-level that they are largely ignored. If you really believe differences are inconsequential, you have no experience bridging cultures or dealing with anything internationally (beyond perhaps the US and another anglo-saxon country). If we were all the same, the phrase "bridging cultures" wouldn't even exist. Please, next time be a little less romantic about human nature.
and as for culture, we are part of the same culture. human culture. the differences betwen cultures are minimal and arbitrary and ultimately inconsequential
Come visit Japan for a while (or pretty much anywhere that isn't Europe/US etc), and I suspect that your "differences are minimal and arbitrary" idea will fall away pretty quick. We're all human, and we all share that, but there's a LOT different as well.
Slashdot Mirror
17 seconds on XP? My Dell Mini 9 (with an SSD) is a bit under 8 seconds from post to window manager, 12 to a desktop.
Oh Jesus! Did you just find a reason for someone to actually USE Vista!?
I... I think I need a drink.
I wonder what you think are in most EEE pcs, then.
Have you stopped beating your wife [Y/N]?
Mu.
If pretty much any piece of Windows malware was to run (theoretical comparison) on *nix, EVERYTHING would be OK. Almost no malware out there actually mucks with the user's files, so a restore here is an increedibly simple procedure, and miles better than the Windows "reformat and probably lose everything" option.
His name is "Le Trung", which is about as un-Japanese as you can get...
And to be completely honest, I feel that people pirating games are unprincipled. If a publisher has done something you're not happy with, let's say introducing draconian DRM, the solution is simple. Don't touch the damn game. That sends a much clearer message than pirating.
Actually, not buying it sends no message at all.
...actually, very much so. Especially on older, out-of-print games. The only way to play Radiant Silvergun, for example, is to pirate it off of torrents with almost no seeders... or buy a copy used for at least $170 USD.
"Without women, men would live like kings.", is how I've heard it said.
We have a phenomenon. People are observing something. It doesn't make sense to a priori decide that what they are seeing is false or merely a product of their own minds.
Sure. Let's start from there. Now, people are seeing things. So, if not merely the product of our minds, where is it coming from? Spirits of the dead? That seems to be what you want it to be, so sure. Now, how do we test this? Where are these spirits? How do they exist? How do we measure them? Is there any way to reproduce this?
Without at least some of those, there's no way the process we call 'science' can even touch this. How could it? Without resorting to inherently flawed methods, there isn't a reasonable way to test this. And, without any way to test it, science isn't the answer.
Yup, that's the problem. You ASSUME you know what reality is, and then go on to not even attempt to measure what you consider outside your reality - even when confronted with experiential evidence!
Measure? How? If you can give me even one way to "measure" this, I might be convinced.
And, "experiental evidence"? Please. It's called "anecdotal", and it's not considered "evidence" by any sense of a word except in a court of law, and even then it's been shown people's memories of incidents can be changed and molded by reinforcement of those around then. A spot in the corner of your eye might quickly turn into ghosts in your house due to the culture about it.
I mean, are schizophrenics really talking to God? Does Terence McKenna having seen "machine elves" on DMT mean that they likely exist? Are the spots I see when I close my eyes messages from another plane of existence? Lacking any real evidence for any of these (and no, people's "experience" is far from real evidence; you can't measure it, it's illogical, random, and malleable), there's no reason to even bother. It's not as if "science" (as if science is some giant committee) is actively denying these things (well, some scientists are, but anyways), it's more that they can't measure it and there's no real, physical evidence that would point even marginally to trying to figure it out.
I'm not saying it's impossible. Before Einstein came around, everyone "knew" that there was nothing more to know in physics. Physics was done. And I'm not saying that science is perfect - look at string theory (how it's also rather untestable) and how much flak it gets and how religiously people defend it. However saying "people see things, so therefore there's a good chance it's real" is beyond silly. The human mind is so good at making things "fit" and changing its own perceptions that anecdotes become almost worthless. If you really don't believe me, read up on people's bias with random number generators. People will believe without a doubt that something completely random is somehow biased for or against them, despite that being completely untrue. That you think we can rely on people's experiences as evidence for "ghosts" means you, honestly, don't know that much about what goes on in the scientific world. It's easy to be an armchair commentator, though.
Have fun failing to get grant money (or succeding at all, really) for basing your hypothesis on wild speculation instead of ANY basis in fact or reality. Science isn't a bunch of people going "huh I wonder". If they had any reason to believe it was "ghosts", it would be based on something other than a bunch of superstitions.
And how, exactly, would one go about detecting a "ghost"? I doubt you could even define what that is, let alone what device/spectrum/way that you could even think of detecting it (read: because it's not real). Other than just running brain scans to see that these people (almost certainly) are just hallucinating.
I wish there were ghosts too. And aliens. And psychics. It'd make the world a lot more interesting. But we're talking about reality here. Or so I assumed.
More like "There's about zero pieces of evidence for ghosts, so until some comes up, or someone comes up with a testable hypothesis, we're going to ignore it."
People love to ignore the "testable" part when using hyperbole to bash science.
same hallucination at the same time.
I am reminded of cases where people's story for court testimony can be changed by reinforcement of those around them.
Either that or an Arwen-Liv-Tyler-Ninja really did walk past your room.
Actually, the adaptability of the human brain radically decreases as you get older, starting from a very young age even. Compare (for instance) language learning ability across age groups, and you'll see that people have a significantly harder time the older they start. So, yes, I would imagine by the time you're 70 or 80, your adaptability to something like this is orders of magnitude smaller than when you were 20 or even 40.
It works more like this. In people's minds, PC == IBM PC. Since Macintosh computers used to not x86-based, they weren't IBM-PC compatible, and thus != PC. It's bad terminology, but that's where it comes from. Sadly, it hasn't fallen out of style.
There were two ways to do that. One was to politely point it out, and one was to act like a douche. For whatever reason, you chose the second. Next time, try the first. People will respond better. Even though this is the internet.
WHAT? NINE THOUSAND? There's no WAY that could be right!
Greater is an ambiguous word in English. More numerous? Probably similarities. More important? Definitely differences, especially in today's global world. No war was ever stopped because the leaders got together and realized they both love their wives the same way (they probably don't anyways). Etcetera.
What's interesting about this discourse is that you haven't really been arguing against me. You've been arguing against a strawman of your own creation that, while having arguments similar to mine, they are inevitably not. I assume this comes from your steadfast belief that you are right in all circumstances (as evidenced by reading what YOU want to into my arguments and your constant stream of insults). You have won the argument, but only against somebody who doesn't exist. This one, my friend, you are grasping in.
I also find it rather interesting that your original post claims that we must eliminate tribalism: something that has popped up in every culture worldwide. Meaning it's part of human nature. By asking to kill off a part of human nature, you've shown me, quite clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
as such, our cultural differences are simply cruft. in every culture of every society that has ever existed are mean people, thoughtful people, madmen, philosophers, ascetic monks, etc. the range of human existence is writ small in every town in every nation now and forever
Sure. You get broad and generic enough, and yes, there are plenty of human similarities that appear.
you say otherwise
No. I never said that. I have only said that the similarities are not as wide reaching as you have claimed. People are dying every day because of cultural differences. But I suppose you'd just argue that differences are merely a part of human existence. (a bit of broken logic there, hmm).
and i asked you to give me an example where some aspect of culture is somehow of fundamental import, and you can't find one single example
You used Japan specifically, and claim that I somehow can't think of anything globally. See how that works? In addition, your original question could be paraphrased this way: "if you wish to dispel the utter contempt in which i hold you, prove your case: argue for something that is not only impossible to argue for, is not something you were arguing in the first place." But go ahead and ignore that sentence too.
you lose. not that it expect you to admit that. but you shouldn't fancy yourself a worldly or cosmopolitan person anymore. you're not
Oh yes, you've got me here. Because I refuse to believe that there's no difference between anyone on the planet, I'm a backwater freak. I would rather celebrate the differences than claim we're all the same. I know that I am dreadfully like other people, and that people in most countries live their lives similarly to mine. But, as I've been saying but you've been ignoring, those similarities are not what drives the world. They're ignored because we ARE the same. Why would one point that out? It's a dreary existance, thinking that every new person you meet won't be new at all, but simply more of that same human stuff. It's more how humanity is expressed differently that makes us truly interesting creatures. But if you want to call that "cruft", then I don't think our minds can meet on this issue.
if you wish to dispel the utter contempt in which i hold you
Wow, just wow. Not only have you refused to actually read my argument properly, you've taken it the wrong way and apparently think I'm someone worthy of hating (on the internet no less). Absolutely incredible. I expected better.
I don't know why you're stuck on Japanese vs American culture (it seems you're assuming I haven't seen any other part of the world), but I'm not going to bite your troll attempt. I've said that, yes, we're all very similar. But trying to ignore that or consider it unimportant is far worse. You'll also note I never actually said the similarities were unimportant - just that they aren't noticed. Re-read my last post and don't parse "The scope of which one is larger is actually unimportant - the similarities are actually so low-level that they are largely ignored." as "Unimportant... low-level... ignored.". That would be a mistake.
(And since you'll probably not let me off the hook on this, let me say "system on honorifics" and "Pre-Meiji Japan" to use that country alone as an example. Completetly foriegn and alien to American culture? You'd better believe it. They're still people, of course.)
Good job, you listed a series of basic human traits. In other words, you agree with me, but don't believe you do. Just think about it again: the base of humans is identical across the board, but culture is what is added on top of that. The scope of which one is larger is actually unimportant - the similarities are actually so low-level that they are largely ignored. If you really believe differences are inconsequential, you have no experience bridging cultures or dealing with anything internationally (beyond perhaps the US and another anglo-saxon country). If we were all the same, the phrase "bridging cultures" wouldn't even exist. Please, next time be a little less romantic about human nature.
Adding a question mark to any sentence makes it a question?
I recommend .debris. By the people who made .kkrieger, that game in under 100k. It's just really, really good looking.
and as for culture, we are part of the same culture. human culture. the differences betwen cultures are minimal and arbitrary and ultimately inconsequential
Come visit Japan for a while (or pretty much anywhere that isn't Europe/US etc), and I suspect that your "differences are minimal and arbitrary" idea will fall away pretty quick. We're all human, and we all share that, but there's a LOT different as well.
Nothing lasts... but nothing is lost.