Desirable doesn't really imply a large market share.Many people find a nice hot curry desirable but still I'd say curry makes up a relatively small percentage of the varieties of food consumned on a daily basis in the UK.
I think that's a very good point. Disconnected web applications are dragging us back to the days of applications that all ran in the same OS but were completely isolated from one-another. Without inter-application communication, your're just leaving your data in isolated colonies around the web or having to crudely copy and past your data.
*sigh*. Yes, the computer itself is usually called a Mac or a G5. As it should be. But Apple Computer (the company) is usually referred to as Apple or Apple Computer. You don't refer to Apple Computer as Mac or G5.
You'd be surprised how many people (particularly the less-technical) refer to Apple as Mac. i.e. "I'm on the phone to Mac now". I would say more people say Apple Computers though instead of Apple Computer. Suppose it is a tricky one to remember. I used to have terrible problems running Microsofts Window on my Dells Computerssess.:-p
The cat lovers are going to be seriously pissed. Not only are you eating their sacred animal, you're also eating the unclean animal of their enemy. 'Inconvenience the infidel' they'll shout as they march through the streets of Chislehurst.
True, there could be a flurry of responses claiming that the example isn't critical thinking. St. Thomas is the only example I can really think of. Even in this case though, he did show some critical thinking. Once Jesus lets him poke around his wounds he becomes a devout believer. The term 'doubting thomas' has become a mildly derogatory term though, as if he was somehow wrong to demand evidence. Of course I can't speak for Christians but my impression is that the scepticism of St. Thomas is not seen as an admirable thing.
I think this story is an interesting one because it's one of the occasions when direct proof was demanded and then provided.
There's a problem here though. What you've described is not science any more than me claiming to be the son of god, for financial gain, could be considered a religion.
Science doesn't compete against religion any more than music does. Science does have the unfortunate habit of proving religions to be wrong.
Some people see technology as the hope for humanity and based on past experience, technological advances will most likely bring great improvements in living. This isn't science though and this is what you're describing.
It's generally considered bad for to criticise a god. You are simply not mean to ask questions, just accept that this is a god and you should do what it says. A theologian can indeed critical and in my mind can be a scientist of sorts. The typical religious follow though is not expected to be critical. Can you think of any Biblical story where critical thinking was rewarded?
I think the people killing one-another in the world would be doing this regardless of religion. If it wasn't religion then it would be tribal. If it wasn't tribal then it would be based on a preference for cats or dogs. There is a disturbing agenda emerging though. Fundamentalist Christianity is on the rise. Look at the attempts to subvert science teaching in the US. Look at the increasing role of faith-based organisations in schools in the UK. I don't think we're going to lapse in to a theocracy any time soon but we could definitely get religion back in to the home or churche where it belongs and out of public life.
If you don't know why the iPod has been so successful, it's probably because you're not the average consumer. Half of your reasons for not buying an iPod were pretty geeky (well point 3 is borderline if you ignore the bit about using Ogg).
2. I don't want ANY UI, I just want to mount it as an external drive (either in windows or linux) and put stuff on it. 3. I couldn't care less about ITunes, I don't buy music online. I prefer to buy plain old CDs and rip them (in ogg format). 6. I doesn't play the format I use most (ogg).
The nano is hardly huge. Are you comparing it to something with a similar feature-set or one of those tiny bare-bones players with a user interface that makes morse code seem intuitive?
If you have studied the history of science at all, you should know, that it often was the lone "voice in the wilderness" that was right, against the prevailing wisdom of the large majority of "experts".
The definititon of the word often would suggest that what you're describing is a frequent event but it isn't when you consider how many 'frustrated geniuses' there are out there. For every Galileo there are a thousand "voices in the wilderness" being ignored by the scientific community simply because their work has no merit.
Since the chances of the lone voice being right are pretty remote when we look at all the lone voices, I don't think we can consider it a frequent event.
Can the claim of a man to be able to transmute lead in to gold be taken seriously? Would refusing to believe this claim also be an act of belief or would it be a rational decision arrived at by examining the evidence (of which he has presented nothing but fables and wild claims).
If this man can demonstrate that he can indeed perform this act then he has a leg to stand on. I believe that he is the one obliged to prove his claim. I have no obligation to disprove this.
If someone makes a fantastic claim for which there is no evidence, the onus is on them to prove their case. Since gods are not scientifically testable there's no way to disprove their existence. I believe atheism is on strong rational ground along with the theory of gravity. I've never been to India but based on evidence from people I know who have visited and articles I've read, I am willing to accept that India exists and is populated by Indians. Just because you can't see something demonstrated in front of you doesn't diminish the fact that it is true as long as you have sufficient evidence. I've not personally seen electricity (well except when the wiring is bad) but I believe that it is travelling through the wire to my computer.
Nevertheless, the eye can detect a single photon, yet not be destroyed by the light intesity of a sunny, snowy winter scene. Nobody has made a camera that has the resolution of a healthy human eye, yet is as sensitive to light. High resolution sensors or film are not very sensitive to light and highly sensitive film doesn't have good resolution. When someone builds a camera that can equal this, I'll buy your argument that the eye is a poor design. An Octopus and its eye is designed for a water environment and has a different function for that creature.
True that the octopus eye is suited to it's environment. Dark skin is better suited to hot regions and light skin better suited to areas where the sunlight is less harsh. This would suggest that species have adapted to their environment since the environment has changed substantially over the past 10,000 years. Either these species were all lucky and managed to find their way to environments suited to them or they evolved in response to their environment.
A computer hard drive is better at storing and retrieving raw data in a lossless format than the brain is. This doesn't prove or disprove the fact that the brain evolved.
If you have compelling evidence that would disprove the broad theory of evolution, I would strongly advise you publish it. Newton has been proven wrong, I'm sure Darwin can be if there is sufficient evidence.
The proof you're asking for will be difficult to provide since a species doesn't evolve in to a new one within a time-period we can observe. However, science is also based on observation. There are solar systems and planets we can't directly see but we know they are there because of the gravitation effects they have on their neighbours. We know that evolution is a valid theory because we can observe the species on this planet. Combining geographical distribution, the fossil record and genetics we can surmise that shared ancestory is the logical explanation.
The argument from credulity is a poor rehashing of Palley's watchmaker. Crystals are complicated structures but this doesn't mean that it had to be designed. Regards the eye, if it was designed you'd have to wonder why it was designed with so many flaws. The routing of the optic nerve means that the each eye has a blind-spot. The light having to pass though a layer of blood vessels reduces it's efficiency. Retinas can become dettached. In the animal world we can see eyes in various stages of development. At the high end we have eyes like ours. At the low end, we have worms with light sensitive rods that can do little else than detect the presence of light.
The eye of an octopus in comparison seems better thought-through. For one, the routing of the optic nerve in the octopus eye doesn't create a blind spot. If God is the designer here, he didn't do a terribly good job.
All these mechanisms are imperfect because they evolved over time through a process of natural selection. Adaptations with a benefit have a greater chance of surviving. To dismiss this on the grounds of probability is like being dealt a hand of cards and then claiming it can't be possible since the odds on receiving that hand are so remote. The odds of life existing are very remote but we know it's possible since we exist.
If you know of a way to refute the broad theory of evolution then I suggest you publish it in a peer reviewed scientific paper and win the Nobel Prize. Science would benefit from evolution being proved false if that is the case.
You are perfectly entitled to believe that an all-knowing God designed these imperfect machines but it's silly to claim that ID is as valid a theory as evolution. ID is a religious theory with a complete lack of verifiable evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence that continues to accumulate. Would it be right to claim that the theory of gravity is a faith-based decision on par with believing that we were created by a god? Perhaps heliocentricity is also something that could be considered a faith based decision.
Extreme atheism could look like a religious belief but it's not quite the same as belief in a supernatural god. You could argue that a strong belief that my nick is TheMysteriousPreacher is religion. You could argue that screaming frenzy of young girls at a Justin Timberlake concert is a religion.
Although I don't think you could call these things religions, you could say that these people 'religiously' follow what they believe. That doesn't mean it's a religion any more than describing someone as gay means that they are happy.
#1 There are plenty of agnostic/athiest nutjobs... trust me... the love is spread equally among religions (and yes... athiesm is a religion... takes just as much belief as any other.
To call atheism a religion is like considering a lack of belief in vampires and witches to be a religion. Atheism requires belief in the same way that the theory of gravity does. It's hardly comparable to belief in a supernatural being.
Sir, you have good taste in games. I was practically raised by Defender and Missile Command. Born in 1974 so i was lucky to be right in the middle of the 2600 boom. Blimey, warlords looks familiar but i can't remember whether I played it or not. I remember the artwork on the cartridge though. Not heard of Seaquest or Porky's.
NES controller was pretty cool. i didn't play that many NES games (pretty much just the mario series) but it was perfect for them.
Yeah, would have been pretty easy to make tetris for the 2600. Moving large blocks of colour around, that's what the 2600 did best.
Suppose he saved himself the misery of playing ET. To this day, I'm glad we had a local rental store so all it cost was a pound or so to find out how terrible that game was. Most of the games he quote (except for the very well known titles like Space Invaders) are from the Sega and NES period so you're probably right. If he really had a 2600 he'd have mentioned Pitfall, Missile Command or Defender as some of the classics.
Damn I miss those joysticks - best ever designed IMHO.
I'll admit I had to look up the exact definition and correct spelling of synergistically (save us from the psuedo-intellectual bullshit words oh jebus) but the rest of it seemed pretty clear.
When you buy wheat, are you paying for the farmer's time or buying the produce? Buying gold could be seen as buying a service but it looks more like a product. When you go to a gold farmers web site, what are they selling there? Time or gold?
I think my interpretation is quite straight-forward Gold farmers sell gold (an item). You're not allowed to sell gold. Your account will be closed (even if you can't be sued for it). Which part of the agreement would you say is vague and so open to interpretation?
"No, when you are a guest you are invited over for free. People on their servers are paying customers - and if they majority turn out to want this, then Blizzard should do what they ask."
Read the dictionary definition of guest. Being a guest does not automatically mean that you're invited over for free. Ever been a guest at a hotel?
It'd be interesting to see if your demographical study of people who agree and disagree with gold selling is accurate. I like your comment about kids and hardcore gamers 'whining' about it. I'm not exactly a hardcore gamer but when someone is trying to piss in my local pond, forgive me if I point out the rules of the game. You think it's fine to go to a house to play monopoly and bring along a wad of your own cash without letting the other players know?
That is your spinn on the situation, others maintain that since there is nothing real in the game there is nothing to sell, except to rent out your time.
This isn't spin, this is reading the terms of service and following them. The terms say that you're not allowed to sell items from the game. How is this spin? Would it also be spin to say that the licence for a regular Starwars DVD allows for personal/domestic use only and can't be shown on oil rigs or in prisons? No it would not. It's based on reading the licence. Now, whether the licence can be legally enforced is another matter.
Just because the items in game can't be put in your pocket doesn't make them any less worthy of protection. Courts exist to interpret and apply the law. So far I don't believe Blizzard have sued anyone yet. It will be interesting to see if they can so this whole matter can be settled. In the meantime, it seems prudent to observe the conditions since remember that we are guests of their service.
Read the ToCs. They clearly state that the data within the game remains the property of Blizzard therefore you have no legal right to sell anything in the game, even if it 'belongs' to your character.
You are not just charging someone for your time. You are charging someone for something that you contractually have no right to sell. This no better than trying to sell the Eiffel tower to tourists.
Even if you varied the actions to add some sense of randomness to them, being unable to respond to a GM would probably cause suspicion. Simple way around it is of course to have a mod that monitors the chat channels and if it detects a request directed at your player, it gets your attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Desirable doesn't really imply a large market share.Many people find a nice hot curry desirable but still I'd say curry makes up a relatively small percentage of the varieties of food consumned on a daily basis in the UK.
I think that's a very good point. Disconnected web applications are dragging us back to the days of applications that all ran in the same OS but were completely isolated from one-another. Without inter-application communication, your're just leaving your data in isolated colonies around the web or having to crudely copy and past your data.
You'd be surprised how many people (particularly the less-technical) refer to Apple as Mac. i.e. "I'm on the phone to Mac now". I would say more people say Apple Computers though instead of Apple Computer. Suppose it is a tricky one to remember. I used to have terrible problems running Microsofts Window on my Dells Computerssess.
The cat lovers are going to be seriously pissed. Not only are you eating their sacred animal, you're also eating the unclean animal of their enemy. 'Inconvenience the infidel' they'll shout as they march through the streets of Chislehurst.
(I'd go for the ribs personally)
True, there could be a flurry of responses claiming that the example isn't critical thinking. St. Thomas is the only example I can really think of. Even in this case though, he did show some critical thinking. Once Jesus lets him poke around his wounds he becomes a devout believer. The term 'doubting thomas' has become a mildly derogatory term though, as if he was somehow wrong to demand evidence. Of course I can't speak for Christians but my impression is that the scepticism of St. Thomas is not seen as an admirable thing.
I think this story is an interesting one because it's one of the occasions when direct proof was demanded and then provided.
There's a problem here though. What you've described is not science any more than me claiming to be the son of god, for financial gain, could be considered a religion.
Science doesn't compete against religion any more than music does. Science does have the unfortunate habit of proving religions to be wrong.
Some people see technology as the hope for humanity and based on past experience, technological advances will most likely bring great improvements in living. This isn't science though and this is what you're describing.
It's generally considered bad for to criticise a god. You are simply not mean to ask questions, just accept that this is a god and you should do what it says. A theologian can indeed critical and in my mind can be a scientist of sorts. The typical religious follow though is not expected to be critical. Can you think of any Biblical story where critical thinking was rewarded?
I think the people killing one-another in the world would be doing this regardless of religion. If it wasn't religion then it would be tribal. If it wasn't tribal then it would be based on a preference for cats or dogs. There is a disturbing agenda emerging though. Fundamentalist Christianity is on the rise. Look at the attempts to subvert science teaching in the US. Look at the increasing role of faith-based organisations in schools in the UK. I don't think we're going to lapse in to a theocracy any time soon but we could definitely get religion back in to the home or churche where it belongs and out of public life.
Doesn't really work because step 3 actually makes sense and could lead to profit.
If you don't know why the iPod has been so successful, it's probably because you're not the average consumer. Half of your reasons for not buying an iPod were pretty geeky (well point 3 is borderline if you ignore the bit about using Ogg).
2. I don't want ANY UI, I just want to mount it as an external drive (either in windows or linux) and put stuff on it.
3. I couldn't care less about ITunes, I don't buy music online. I prefer to buy plain old CDs and rip them (in ogg format).
6. I doesn't play the format I use most (ogg).
The nano is hardly huge. Are you comparing it to something with a similar feature-set or one of those tiny bare-bones players with a user interface that makes morse code seem intuitive?
The definititon of the word often would suggest that what you're describing is a frequent event but it isn't when you consider how many 'frustrated geniuses' there are out there. For every Galileo there are a thousand "voices in the wilderness" being ignored by the scientific community simply because their work has no merit.
Since the chances of the lone voice being right are pretty remote when we look at all the lone voices, I don't think we can consider it a frequent event.
Can the claim of a man to be able to transmute lead in to gold be taken seriously? Would refusing to believe this claim also be an act of belief or would it be a rational decision arrived at by examining the evidence (of which he has presented nothing but fables and wild claims).
If this man can demonstrate that he can indeed perform this act then he has a leg to stand on. I believe that he is the one obliged to prove his claim. I have no obligation to disprove this.
If someone makes a fantastic claim for which there is no evidence, the onus is on them to prove their case. Since gods are not scientifically testable there's no way to disprove their existence. I believe atheism is on strong rational ground along with the theory of gravity. I've never been to India but based on evidence from people I know who have visited and articles I've read, I am willing to accept that India exists and is populated by Indians. Just because you can't see something demonstrated in front of you doesn't diminish the fact that it is true as long as you have sufficient evidence. I've not personally seen electricity (well except when the wiring is bad) but I believe that it is travelling through the wire to my computer.
True that the octopus eye is suited to it's environment. Dark skin is better suited to hot regions and light skin better suited to areas where the sunlight is less harsh. This would suggest that species have adapted to their environment since the environment has changed substantially over the past 10,000 years. Either these species were all lucky and managed to find their way to environments suited to them or they evolved in response to their environment.
A computer hard drive is better at storing and retrieving raw data in a lossless format than the brain is. This doesn't prove or disprove the fact that the brain evolved.
If you have compelling evidence that would disprove the broad theory of evolution, I would strongly advise you publish it. Newton has been proven wrong, I'm sure Darwin can be if there is sufficient evidence.
The proof you're asking for will be difficult to provide since a species doesn't evolve in to a new one within a time-period we can observe. However, science is also based on observation. There are solar systems and planets we can't directly see but we know they are there because of the gravitation effects they have on their neighbours. We know that evolution is a valid theory because we can observe the species on this planet. Combining geographical distribution, the fossil record and genetics we can surmise that shared ancestory is the logical explanation.
The argument from credulity is a poor rehashing of Palley's watchmaker. Crystals are complicated structures but this doesn't mean that it had to be designed. Regards the eye, if it was designed you'd have to wonder why it was designed with so many flaws. The routing of the optic nerve means that the each eye has a blind-spot. The light having to pass though a layer of blood vessels reduces it's efficiency. Retinas can become dettached. In the animal world we can see eyes in various stages of development. At the high end we have eyes like ours. At the low end, we have worms with light sensitive rods that can do little else than detect the presence of light.
The eye of an octopus in comparison seems better thought-through. For one, the routing of the optic nerve in the octopus eye doesn't create a blind spot. If God is the designer here, he didn't do a terribly good job.
All these mechanisms are imperfect because they evolved over time through a process of natural selection. Adaptations with a benefit have a greater chance of surviving. To dismiss this on the grounds of probability is like being dealt a hand of cards and then claiming it can't be possible since the odds on receiving that hand are so remote. The odds of life existing are very remote but we know it's possible since we exist.
If you know of a way to refute the broad theory of evolution then I suggest you publish it in a peer reviewed scientific paper and win the Nobel Prize. Science would benefit from evolution being proved false if that is the case.
You are perfectly entitled to believe that an all-knowing God designed these imperfect machines but it's silly to claim that ID is as valid a theory as evolution. ID is a religious theory with a complete lack of verifiable evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence that continues to accumulate. Would it be right to claim that the theory of gravity is a faith-based decision on par with believing that we were created by a god? Perhaps heliocentricity is also something that could be considered a faith based decision.
Extreme atheism could look like a religious belief but it's not quite the same as belief in a supernatural god. You could argue that a strong belief that my nick is TheMysteriousPreacher is religion. You could argue that screaming frenzy of young girls at a Justin Timberlake concert is a religion.
Although I don't think you could call these things religions, you could say that these people 'religiously' follow what they believe. That doesn't mean it's a religion any more than describing someone as gay means that they are happy.
To call atheism a religion is like considering a lack of belief in vampires and witches to be a religion. Atheism requires belief in the same way that the theory of gravity does. It's hardly comparable to belief in a supernatural being.
You'd hope that they would be using military-grade components (which are designed to be more resistant to EM radiation).
Sir, you have good taste in games. I was practically raised by Defender and Missile Command. Born in 1974 so i was lucky to be right in the middle of the 2600 boom. Blimey, warlords looks familiar but i can't remember whether I played it or not. I remember the artwork on the cartridge though. Not heard of Seaquest or Porky's.
NES controller was pretty cool. i didn't play that many NES games (pretty much just the mario series) but it was perfect for them.
Yeah, would have been pretty easy to make tetris for the 2600. Moving large blocks of colour around, that's what the 2600 did best.
Suppose he saved himself the misery of playing ET. To this day, I'm glad we had a local rental store so all it cost was a pound or so to find out how terrible that game was. Most of the games he quote (except for the very well known titles like Space Invaders) are from the Sega and NES period so you're probably right. If he really had a 2600 he'd have mentioned Pitfall, Missile Command or Defender as some of the classics.
Damn I miss those joysticks - best ever designed IMHO.
I'll admit I had to look up the exact definition and correct spelling of synergistically (save us from the psuedo-intellectual bullshit words oh jebus) but the rest of it seemed pretty clear.
Overall a perfectly cromulent post.
I don't think we'll agree here but thanks for the discussion. One of the better ones I've had here.
I think my interpretation is quite straight-forward Gold farmers sell gold (an item). You're not allowed to sell gold. Your account will be closed (even if you can't be sued for it). Which part of the agreement would you say is vague and so open to interpretation?
Read the dictionary definition of guest. Being a guest does not automatically mean that you're invited over for free. Ever been a guest at a hotel?
It'd be interesting to see if your demographical study of people who agree and disagree with gold selling is accurate. I like your comment about kids and hardcore gamers 'whining' about it. I'm not exactly a hardcore gamer but when someone is trying to piss in my local pond, forgive me if I point out the rules of the game. You think it's fine to go to a house to play monopoly and bring along a wad of your own cash without letting the other players know?
This isn't spin, this is reading the terms of service and following them. The terms say that you're not allowed to sell items from the game. How is this spin? Would it also be spin to say that the licence for a regular Starwars DVD allows for personal/domestic use only and can't be shown on oil rigs or in prisons? No it would not. It's based on reading the licence. Now, whether the licence can be legally enforced is another matter.
Just because the items in game can't be put in your pocket doesn't make them any less worthy of protection. Courts exist to interpret and apply the law. So far I don't believe Blizzard have sued anyone yet. It will be interesting to see if they can so this whole matter can be settled. In the meantime, it seems prudent to observe the conditions since remember that we are guests of their service.
Read the ToCs. They clearly state that the data within the game remains the property of Blizzard therefore you have no legal right to sell anything in the game, even if it 'belongs' to your character.
You are not just charging someone for your time. You are charging someone for something that you contractually have no right to sell. This no better than trying to sell the Eiffel tower to tourists.
Yep. Trolls and undead are the horde races that can become priests.
Even if you varied the actions to add some sense of randomness to them, being unable to respond to a GM would probably cause suspicion. Simple way around it is of course to have a mod that monitors the chat channels and if it detects a request directed at your player, it gets your attention.