Exactly, I bet per hour this guy made a ton more than any of the programmers on the team. If this game took three years to make they each could have pulled in 200k I'm sure but how many hours is that? 40 a week? 60 a week? 80 a week at crunch time? When you pay an artist, you're paying for the enormous amount of hours it takes outside of the recording or performance.
This actor didn't just show up and read a bunch of lines. He worked for years on this trade. Also, if you estimate that programmers made $200K over the course of the game's development, that's still twice what the star of the game made. Yes, and coders spend a lot of time honing their craft, keeping up on changing technology, etc. This is not something specific to "artistic" professions.
I dunno, tho I'd assume you need a hellacious volume of particules to exert this kind of pressure, and the source would consequently need to be really big, or really close... enough so that we should have seen it already.
1) "what you like" != better 2) learn to use the language 3) No, it's intentional.
What language zealots (of ANY language) fail to realize is that there are different styles of coding for different uses and different users. Insisting that there is ONE TRUE WAY to program isn't a sign of wisdom...
What do you want, $x matches a_letter_between_a_and_z or something?
There's a reason lot of languages have adopted the Perl regex rules (which were in turn based on earlier Unix programs). Don't blame your failure to understand the technology ON the technology when millions of us do just fine.
Those that decry the complexity of regexes often have yet to realize how powerful they are, when used correctly.
The counter argument is that the rules precede current concepts of "God" (they do) and they exist for very pragmatic reasons.
Frankly, it's somewhat scary how many people only behave because they fear hell. Me? I'm wormfood at the end of this life, but I still try to be decent. For some interesting reason, religious types like to claim atheists can't be moral... this is very amusing to me.
I'm not gonna go off on the church/state thing, save this. Just now you basically stated that there is a God, whether I believe it or not. You have no proof, but you believe. Fine, but when imaginary friends start becoming part of public policy, society goes to hell (as it were).
There is NO reason why your god gets special priveleges over the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some random being I imagine. Fantasy/faith are relatively inconsequential when they are private, but once they are imposed - and every highly religious political party in the history of the species tries to impose it's will - it's a very, very bad thing for everyone else.
The manger/cross/crescent/meatballs belongs at church, or someone's lawn... or a private business (no matter how visible it is to the public), but NOT on government land.
1) Yeah, but the vast majority would agree that science passes this test. 2) This isn't ad hominem... if someone's arguments are consistently weak, citing those arguments is a bad idea. I didn't say he has big ears and it thus wrong... I said his whole argument is wrong. Besides, he's being dishonest. If someone wants to believe in a god, fine, do so. But don't abuse science by claiming it supports you. 3) Eh, it's one of the defining elements of a male (human). I could have said XY instead of XX, but I didn't want to get "ya know, genetics is JUST A THEORY". I'm tired of that kinda stuff
No need to cross swords, the point of debate is to approach the truth. As I've said, I have yet to meet a creationist who understands evolution... so how the hell do they refute it?
BTW, if you wanna see evolution (and media hype) in action, watch this bird flu thing... it's a beautiful example.
What are they just making up? There are some guesses as to how certain transitions were made, yeah... but in time we'll fill those in.
I've heard this argument many times, and never understood it. I understand evolution pretty well, and I don't see where faith is required. If you're interested in discussing, I'd be interested. If ya just want to make the same old claims, I'll shut up tho.
1) Philosophers dispute by default, it's their job:) Nevertheless, whether a theory is derived, assumed or based on a hunch, it still has to be testable, tested and validated before it gets any respect.
2) Dembski's "Complexity" talk is gibberish doubletalk, usually. You might pick up Skeptic from a few months back (it's quarterly) which fairly well demolishes him. You might also consider Douglass Adams arguments about how a puddle of water might find it amazing that it's world (a pothole) fits it EXACTLY. It's from a talk called "Is there an artificial God", I think.
3) OK, if your definition of believers in a creator is limited to the religious... that's true but worthless. Most everyone who is a man has a penis too, but it's not a particularly impressive statement.
I missed this... and it's important: "life is not random."
No, it is not. Nor does evolution imply, suggest or claim that it is. That's the whole point of natural selection.
I don't want to be a jerk, but I've never met an opponent of evolution that actually understood the theory, and this kind of claim follows that pattern.
If you're interested, you might check out anything by Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker is brilliant), you might find it interesting.
How is ID a science? It makes no particularly testable claims, and the 1 pseudo-scientific aspect ("irreducible complexity") has been soundly disproven. Science has a definition, and ID fails it badly. ID is mostly an argument of "I don't understand, so god did it". Seems to me that personal ignorance is a lousy basis for approaching truth.
Moreover, the assertion that "most everyone" believes in a creator is not particularly true. In the US, religion dominates, but we are somewhat unusual in that respect.
If a person wants to rely on faith, well fine (not really fine... they are depriving themselves of a truly wondrous universe, but that's their choice), but to try to paint that faith as somehow supported by science is a very unwise idea.
I understand. Believe me, I have some nasty opinions on religion too, but that's not the point.
Here's a parallel... I work with a couple of assholes on a fairly regular basis. I may share that opinion with a friend, but I would not be rude to them in a work setting. Yes, they are jerks; No, it is not acceptable that I retalliate. If I do, I could expect (work-related) punishment. that's all.
My understanding is that ID only really "applies" to the formation of life, not the overall physical world... but that camp has been vague at times.
An interesting ramification of ID is that life (on earth) as Designed is equally likely of an alien as divine origin:) This is all rubbish of course, right up there with angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff, but somewhat amusing.
Nice try:) Just because something hasn't been peer-reviewed does NOT make it false, it merely means there is a decent chance that the experimenter/observer made a mistake that hasn't been caught.
Peer review establishes a level of confidence (at least as framed against current understanding), not absolute truth.
No one deserves a beating just because someone else disagrees.
The guy should be called on the carpet for being nasty in a more-or-less professional role... whether or not that merits losing a department head position, I don't know. That's more a matter of the subculture of academia, and I only know the student side of that.
There's some evidence suggesting we are more or less wired to believe that which makes up happy, so yeah, "belief" is likely a human tendency.
Almost any belief system, lack of belief, or philosophy is harder than "God did it", of course. This doesn't prove much... Catholics have much more complicated rules than other christian sects, this doesn't make them RIGHT, it just means they have the coolest hats:)
...it might be nice to have the commforting stories about a protector, afterlife, etc. instead of the truth that we're each on their own, and will die in (at most) a few thousand days.
I will say that I don't have to live with the guilt for breaking rules I don't reallt believe in that most people do.
People can believe whatever they want... I work across from a church, and see people go in all the time. I think they are wasting their time, but I don't bug them... they made their choice, I made mine. ain't freedom spiffy?
I've heard various people use the term... it is intended more or less to point out how "modern" gods are no more reasonable than ancient ones.
The terms are much debated... some say Agnostic means we have no way of knowing, some say it means we cannot possibly know... I got tired of the word games, and just assumed 'godless heathen':)
Personally, I don't claim to have evidence either way and thus don't nothing. You are thinking of strong/hard/positive atheism, which I have a problem with as well. Part of the problem is that language changes, and at various times 'atheism' has meant both 'lack of belief' and 'denial of'. It's fairly political, and some folks take it really seriously. I go for the former definition.
I'm pretty sure that the "God" most religious folks believe in isn't real... there's too much evidence that the current creation myths are derived from much older, tribal traditions.
I would suggest that denying a supreme being is untenable, but so is affirming one. Thus, I don't go for either.
Of course, I'm just a smart ape on a remote planet, I could be wrong.
Eh, I'm a godless heathen and I don't consider it a "belief"... it's a lack of one. It's the old "if atheism is a religion, then health is a disease" thing.
I have a certain level of trust in science because it seems to work very well, but to use "belief" is probably not fair.
It is interesting that even non-believers have chosen to break into sects (agnostic, deist, non-theist, soft/hard/strong/positive atheist). Says a lot about the human psycge, I think.
Hell, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that he seems (unless the news is reporting incorrectly) to have violated general standards of professionalism, and that has consequences.
If he does it on his own time/resources, then it's none of the school's business.
Slashdot Mirror
This actor didn't just show up and read a bunch of lines. He worked for years on this trade. Also, if you estimate that programmers made $200K over the course of the game's development, that's still twice what the star of the game made. Yes, and coders spend a lot of time honing their craft, keeping up on changing technology, etc. This is not something specific to "artistic" professions.
No, we're talking about an extrasolar(system) source, something that would emit particles that exert pressure against Sol's solar wind.
I dunno, tho I'd assume you need a hellacious volume of particules to exert this kind of pressure, and the source would consequently need to be really big, or really close... enough so that we should have seen it already.
Of course, I'm pulling that straight out my ass.
1) "what you like" != better
2) learn to use the language
3) No, it's intentional.
What language zealots (of ANY language) fail to realize is that there are different styles of coding for different uses and different users. Insisting that there is ONE TRUE WAY to program isn't a sign of wisdom...
"Intuitive" pattern matching? say what?
What do you want, $x matches a_letter_between_a_and_z or something?
There's a reason lot of languages have adopted the Perl regex rules (which were in turn based on earlier Unix programs). Don't blame your failure to understand the technology ON the technology when millions of us do just fine.
Those that decry the complexity of regexes often have yet to realize how powerful they are, when used correctly.
And perl's greediness in matching strings sucks (because someone was too lazy to put proper string functions into the language?)
Hey, just cuz you can't write a decent regex...
Ah, good to know the path to salvation is fear...
The counter argument is that the rules precede current concepts of "God" (they do) and they exist for very pragmatic reasons.
Frankly, it's somewhat scary how many people only behave because they fear hell. Me? I'm wormfood at the end of this life, but I still try to be decent. For some interesting reason, religious types like to claim atheists can't be moral... this is very amusing to me.
I'm not gonna go off on the church/state thing, save this. Just now you basically stated that there is a God, whether I believe it or not. You have no proof, but you believe. Fine, but when imaginary friends start becoming part of public policy, society goes to hell (as it were).
There is NO reason why your god gets special priveleges over the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some random being I imagine. Fantasy/faith are relatively inconsequential when they are private, but once they are imposed - and every highly religious political party in the history of the species tries to impose it's will - it's a very, very bad thing for everyone else.
The manger/cross/crescent/meatballs belongs at church, or someone's lawn... or a private business (no matter how visible it is to the public), but NOT on government land.
1) Yeah, but the vast majority would agree that science passes this test.
2) This isn't ad hominem... if someone's arguments are consistently weak, citing those arguments is a bad idea. I didn't say he has big ears and it thus wrong... I said his whole argument is wrong. Besides, he's being dishonest. If someone wants to believe in a god, fine, do so. But don't abuse science by claiming it supports you.
3) Eh, it's one of the defining elements of a male (human). I could have said XY instead of XX, but I didn't want to get "ya know, genetics is JUST A THEORY". I'm tired of that kinda stuff
No need to cross swords, the point of debate is to approach the truth. As I've said, I have yet to meet a creationist who understands evolution... so how the hell do they refute it?
BTW, if you wanna see evolution (and media hype) in action, watch this bird flu thing... it's a beautiful example.
That's a long rambling way of telling a guy to go to hell.
BTW, why is is that so many christians take such pleasure in telling others that they are damned? Not exactly what your christ wanted, is it?
What are they just making up? There are some guesses as to how certain transitions were made, yeah... but in time we'll fill those in.
I've heard this argument many times, and never understood it. I understand evolution pretty well, and I don't see where faith is required. If you're interested in discussing, I'd be interested. If ya just want to make the same old claims, I'll shut up tho.
1) Philosophers dispute by default, it's their job :) Nevertheless, whether a theory is derived, assumed or based on a hunch, it still has to be testable, tested and validated before it gets any respect.
2) Dembski's "Complexity" talk is gibberish doubletalk, usually. You might pick up Skeptic from a few months back (it's quarterly) which fairly well demolishes him. You might also consider Douglass Adams arguments about how a puddle of water might find it amazing that it's world (a pothole) fits it EXACTLY. It's from a talk called "Is there an artificial God", I think.
3) OK, if your definition of believers in a creator is limited to the religious... that's true but worthless. Most everyone who is a man has a penis too, but it's not a particularly impressive statement.
I missed this... and it's important: "life is not random."
No, it is not. Nor does evolution imply, suggest or claim that it is. That's the whole point of natural selection.
I don't want to be a jerk, but I've never met an opponent of evolution that actually understood the theory, and this kind of claim follows that pattern.
If you're interested, you might check out anything by Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker is brilliant), you might find it interesting.
How is ID a science? It makes no particularly testable claims, and the 1 pseudo-scientific aspect ("irreducible complexity") has been soundly disproven. Science has a definition, and ID fails it badly. ID is mostly an argument of "I don't understand, so god did it". Seems to me that personal ignorance is a lousy basis for approaching truth.
Moreover, the assertion that "most everyone" believes in a creator is not particularly true. In the US, religion dominates, but we are somewhat unusual in that respect.
If a person wants to rely on faith, well fine (not really fine... they are depriving themselves of a truly wondrous universe, but that's their choice), but to try to paint that faith as somehow supported by science is a very unwise idea.
I understand. Believe me, I have some nasty opinions on religion too, but that's not the point.
Here's a parallel... I work with a couple of assholes on a fairly regular basis. I may share that opinion with a friend, but I would not be rude to them in a work setting. Yes, they are jerks; No, it is not acceptable that I retalliate. If I do, I could expect (work-related) punishment. that's all.
My understanding is that ID only really "applies" to the formation of life, not the overall physical world... but that camp has been vague at times.
:) This is all rubbish of course, right up there with angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff, but somewhat amusing.
An interesting ramification of ID is that life (on earth) as Designed is equally likely of an alien as divine origin
Nice try :) Just because something hasn't been peer-reviewed does NOT make it false, it merely means there is a decent chance that the experimenter/observer made a mistake that hasn't been caught.
Peer review establishes a level of confidence (at least as framed against current understanding), not absolute truth.
No one deserves a beating just because someone else disagrees.
The guy should be called on the carpet for being nasty in a more-or-less professional role... whether or not that merits losing a department head position, I don't know. That's more a matter of the subculture of academia, and I only know the student side of that.
I'm curious how Evolution (a well supported model of the world) qualifies as a religion...?
There's some evidence suggesting we are more or less wired to believe that which makes up happy, so yeah, "belief" is likely a human tendency.
:)
Almost any belief system, lack of belief, or philosophy is harder than "God did it", of course. This doesn't prove much... Catholics have much more complicated rules than other christian sects, this doesn't make them RIGHT, it just means they have the coolest hats
...it might be nice to have the commforting stories about a protector, afterlife, etc. instead of the truth that we're each on their own, and will die in (at most) a few thousand days.
I will say that I don't have to live with the guilt for breaking rules I don't reallt believe in that most people do.
People can believe whatever they want... I work across from a church, and see people go in all the time. I think they are wasting their time, but I don't bug them... they made their choice, I made mine. ain't freedom spiffy?
I've heard various people use the term... it is intended more or less to point out how "modern" gods are no more reasonable than ancient ones.
The terms are much debated... some say Agnostic means we have no way of knowing, some say it means we cannot possibly know... I got tired of the word games, and just assumed 'godless heathen' :)
Personally, I don't claim to have evidence either way and thus don't nothing. You are thinking of strong/hard/positive atheism, which I have a problem with as well. Part of the problem is that language changes, and at various times 'atheism' has meant both 'lack of belief' and 'denial of'. It's fairly political, and some folks take it really seriously. I go for the former definition.
I'm pretty sure that the "God" most religious folks believe in isn't real... there's too much evidence that the current creation myths are derived from much older, tribal traditions.
I would suggest that denying a supreme being is untenable, but so is affirming one. Thus, I don't go for either.
Of course, I'm just a smart ape on a remote planet, I could be wrong.
Eh, I'm a godless heathen and I don't consider it a "belief"... it's a lack of one. It's the old "if atheism is a religion, then health is a disease" thing.
I have a certain level of trust in science because it seems to work very well, but to use "belief" is probably not fair.
It is interesting that even non-believers have chosen to break into sects (agnostic, deist, non-theist, soft/hard/strong/positive atheist). Says a lot about the human psycge, I think.
Hell, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that he seems (unless the news is reporting incorrectly) to have violated general standards of professionalism, and that has consequences.
If he does it on his own time/resources, then it's none of the school's business.