Well what it comes down to is the author finds these games boring and makes the common mistake of thinking everybody feels the same.
I can already see the next headline for a topic regarding the teaching of evolution in schools: "Should Our Tax Money Sponsor Condemning Our Children to Eternal Suffering In Hell?"
Counting shots that penetrate the armor in non-protective areas doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You could shoot holes through standard issue armor all day if you aim where there's no plate.
The enemy isn't going to be aiming for the protective areas, right? I'd think that as much of the body should be protected as possible. Otherwise I could market a 3 inch thick, 5 inch diameter titanium medallion as body armor.
So what happens if you share a name with an illegal immigrant? It's not like they'll have a social security number to differentiate with. We know that with the no fly list even sharing a part of your name is enough to be kicked out of the airport.
Your Honor, in my defense, I'd like to direct your attention to Law & Order, Season 7, Epsiode 15. Yes, clearly it was the politically connected Step-father who murdered the co-ed he was having an affair with. And, as if that weren't enough, I'd like to ask the prosecution some leading questions in regards to Wookies."
Dude, you're clearly not competent enough to be your own defense. You should never request permission to ask leading questions.
It clearly differs from victim to victim. Some can get their lives back in order in a relatively short time, while others will never be able to look at a man again without reliving their ordeal.
Violent sex offenders deserve the death penalty, period. I don't want to pay to incarcerate someone who molested a 5 year old (or an infant, yes it happens). First we need to put some close-in-age exceptions into our laws so two teenagers who have sex are not charged as sex offenders, but once that is done, warm up the electric chair, hypodermic needle, etc.
And then 15 years later it comes out that there was no crime, that the psychologist merely convinced little Jenny that she'll be able to see your father again if she says he touched her in the naughty place. And everybody says, "Oops, oh well. We did it for the children."
The problem with the death penalty is that there is no going back.
And you still have to define "violent sex offender." Does a perv who pushes a woman to the ground, rips off her bathing suit top, and runs away laughing deserve death?
Yes, considering a black hole the size of mars would simply act exactly as mars did gravitationally. The only difference would be that any object that would normally have hit mars would instead be sucked into the black hole's event horizon. This assumes I understand current theory correctly, but i think I'm right.
A black hole the mass of mars would act the same way as mars gravitationally. A black hole the size of mars would doom us all.
How does being on the receiving end of hundreds of years of slavery and oppression justify making statements which affirm the hateful, misguided views of those behind that oppression?
Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but I'm not sure why the musings about why attacks stopped in Al-Anbar in early 2004 are so particularly embarrassing.
To play the devil's conspiracy theorist, perhaps the top brass wanted arranged for the attacks in Al-Anbar.
Or far more likely they were worried that Al-Anbar allied with the insurgents.
Don't misunderstand me - I enjoy science and find the pursuit of all types of knowledge both useful and fulfilling, but to learn as much as I have and still be convinced of anything, especially when it "makes sense," takes a lot of faith and/or hubris. And I'm at the ripe old age of 25, so I should know;)
It's pretty simple - when you can't figure out how something could possibly be true, then it doesn't make sense. That's what a logical impossibility is. As far as I know, it's possible that the sun will go supernova tomorrow. It's possible that the universe will blink out of existence. It's possible that Prince Akhbar of Nigeria really does want to give me USD$50,000,000,000. It's impossible for 1+1=3 without redefinition of the terms. I believe I have a healthy imagination, too healthy according to some people. And yet the only possibilities I can think of for how the universe could work are consistency and pure chaos. There is nothing in between - by its very definition, limited/controlled chaos follows laws.
All right, I will admit that there is a rather unlikely possibility that the universe is pure chaos, and the consistency we seem to experience popped into existence by pure chance and will be gone any second. Of course a far likelier possibility would be that my mind/memories popped into existence fully formed and nothing else is real. But still rather unlikely.
I can understand watching bits and pieces of a movie that's being broadcast over and over, but how do you explain watching bits and pieces of it when it's ON DEMAND? Do you request the movie and then fast forward to a random segment? Do you constantly fall asleep while watching it?
I have a feeling a lot of that RAM may be taken up by certain extensions. It also depends a lot on how your browse. I constantly open and close tabs, which would explain quite a lot if the memory used by pages from the closed tabs isn't freed up.
Feel free to suggest any alternatives which actually make sense. Note that with "obeys laws" I refer to the fundamental laws of the universe, whatever those are. For instance, I'm not saying that all things obey the law of gravity. If any thing doesn't obey the law of gravity, that merely means that the law of gravity is not one of the fundamental laws of the universe/multiverse. It's even possible that we are all inside of some beings science experiment and every single "law of physics" we've discovered has been artificially created for us. But whatever the nature of reality is, there is a nature, and everything stems from it. That's the only thing that makes sense.
So you're saying that god can't exist because the very existence of such a being is impossible? But even if it did exist it really wouldn't? I agree.
Depending on your definition of "god." I believe true free will to be logically impossible. A being could no more have free will than it could make 1+1=3 without redefining the terms "1", "+", "=", and "3". So if your definition of a god requires it to be able to do the logically impossible, the existence of such a being is a logical impossibility itself.
And why must the universe obey your "laws"? Why must it be consistent? Do you really think we humans can simply catalog every phenomenon and neatly line them up for a sum total view of our universe? The fact that we are inside of it makes this seem highly unlikely to me (see Godel's incompleteness theorem).my laws, they're the universe's own laws. Or if there are multiple universes, they're the multiverse's laws. And if you'd bothered to read my post instead of skimming it, you'd know that I don't think humans will ever know everything there is to know about these laws.
There are souls and magic and God(s) and hundreds of other wonders unseen; you may simply be too science-blind to experience them. In your universe, do love and curiosity and unease and boredom consist of nothing more than chemicals? The richness of human experience cannot be fully analyzed, and if you try to do so you become a little less alive.
Whatever these things consist of, they obey laws just like everything else. If understanding a magic trick makes you less alive, don't try to understand it. That's your choice, even if it is predetermined.
I thought the whole concept of a God(s) was that the God(s) is the one who made up the "laws of nature" and the universe in the first place and can bend or break them at the God(s)'s will/desire (since he/she/they are the one(s) who laid that down in the first place)? Or am I missing something from your argument? Not trying to get in on the whole "Does Free Will Exist?" debate, just trying to get your point... if you have one.
Well, it does actually touch on Free Will since I believe that even God would be a slave to It's own nature. If God exists, as far as everyone and everything else is concerned the law of the Universe could be "whatever the hell God wants, is." However, not even God could control what to want. In essence the fundamental law of the universe would be God's nature, whatever that is, but nothing can ultimately control it's own nature because any decisions to change one's nature stem from the current nature (as well as external input of course, though for God there may not be any external input.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well what it comes down to is the author finds these games boring and makes the common mistake of thinking everybody feels the same.
I can already see the next headline for a topic regarding the teaching of evolution in schools:
"Should Our Tax Money Sponsor Condemning Our Children to Eternal Suffering In Hell?"
Counting shots that penetrate the armor in non-protective areas doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You could shoot holes through standard issue armor all day if you aim where there's no plate.
The enemy isn't going to be aiming for the protective areas, right? I'd think that as much of the body should be protected as possible. Otherwise I could market a 3 inch thick, 5 inch diameter titanium medallion as body armor.
So what happens if you share a name with an illegal immigrant? It's not like they'll have a social security number to differentiate with. We know that with the no fly list even sharing a part of your name is enough to be kicked out of the airport.
As far as I'm concerned, a different shade of a color is a different color.
Your Honor, in my defense, I'd like to direct your attention to Law & Order, Season 7, Epsiode 15. Yes, clearly it was the politically connected Step-father who murdered the co-ed he was having an affair with. And, as if that weren't enough, I'd like to ask the prosecution some leading questions in regards to Wookies."
Dude, you're clearly not competent enough to be your own defense. You should never request permission to ask leading questions.
It clearly differs from victim to victim. Some can get their lives back in order in a relatively short time, while others will never be able to look at a man again without reliving their ordeal.
Violent sex offenders deserve the death penalty, period. I don't want to pay to incarcerate someone who molested a 5 year old (or an infant, yes it happens). First we need to put some close-in-age exceptions into our laws so two teenagers who have sex are not charged as sex offenders, but once that is done, warm up the electric chair, hypodermic needle, etc.
And then 15 years later it comes out that there was no crime, that the psychologist merely convinced little Jenny that she'll be able to see your father again if she says he touched her in the naughty place. And everybody says, "Oops, oh well. We did it for the children."
The problem with the death penalty is that there is no going back.
And you still have to define "violent sex offender." Does a perv who pushes a woman to the ground, rips off her bathing suit top, and runs away laughing deserve death?
No, you have it all wrong. You should sue the boss not for forcing you to punch him, but for the damage his face did to your fist.
Peter Griffin: Wow, is that really the blood of Christ?
Preacher: Yes.
Peter Griffin: Wow, that guy must've been wasted 24 hours a day, huh?
Yes, considering a black hole the size of mars would simply act exactly as mars did gravitationally. The only difference would be that any object that would normally have hit mars would instead be sucked into the black hole's event horizon. This assumes I understand current theory correctly, but i think I'm right.
A black hole the mass of mars would act the same way as mars gravitationally. A black hole the size of mars would doom us all.
We don't know the physics of black holes well enough to know what tiny variable change might keep it from evaporating.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a cargo freighter full of tapes.
How does being on the receiving end of hundreds of years of slavery and oppression justify making statements which affirm the hateful, misguided views of those behind that oppression?
Maybe it's part of the reparations package?
Instead, stop seeing your child as "just plain evil", and start looking for solutions to his problems.
Three months ago slashdot ran a story about this letter regarding a child just like that. What would you have done in place of the kid's guardian?
Why not just google it?
Dude, they're not just zooming in, they're using the hq1000x scaling algorithm to fill in the details!
Dude.. it's just a movie. There are far worse things in the world to be upset about.
Another way of thinking is "Dude, there are enough bad things in the world. Let's not add to them."
Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but I'm not sure why the musings about why attacks stopped in Al-Anbar in early 2004 are so particularly embarrassing.
To play the devil's conspiracy theorist, perhaps the top brass wanted arranged for the attacks in Al-Anbar.
Or far more likely they were worried that Al-Anbar allied with the insurgents.
Don't misunderstand me - I enjoy science and find the pursuit of all types of knowledge both useful and fulfilling, but to learn as much as I have and still be convinced of anything, especially when it "makes sense," takes a lot of faith and/or hubris. And I'm at the ripe old age of 25, so I should know ;)
It's pretty simple - when you can't figure out how something could possibly be true, then it doesn't make sense. That's what a logical impossibility is. As far as I know, it's possible that the sun will go supernova tomorrow. It's possible that the universe will blink out of existence. It's possible that Prince Akhbar of Nigeria really does want to give me USD$50,000,000,000. It's impossible for 1+1=3 without redefinition of the terms. I believe I have a healthy imagination, too healthy according to some people. And yet the only possibilities I can think of for how the universe could work are consistency and pure chaos. There is nothing in between - by its very definition, limited/controlled chaos follows laws.
All right, I will admit that there is a rather unlikely possibility that the universe is pure chaos, and the consistency we seem to experience popped into existence by pure chance and will be gone any second. Of course a far likelier possibility would be that my mind/memories popped into existence fully formed and nothing else is real. But still rather unlikely.
I can understand watching bits and pieces of a movie that's being broadcast over and over, but how do you explain watching bits and pieces of it when it's ON DEMAND? Do you request the movie and then fast forward to a random segment? Do you constantly fall asleep while watching it?
I have a feeling a lot of that RAM may be taken up by certain extensions. It also depends a lot on how your browse. I constantly open and close tabs, which would explain quite a lot if the memory used by pages from the closed tabs isn't freed up.
Prove it.
Feel free to suggest any alternatives which actually make sense. Note that with "obeys laws" I refer to the fundamental laws of the universe, whatever those are. For instance, I'm not saying that all things obey the law of gravity. If any thing doesn't obey the law of gravity, that merely means that the law of gravity is not one of the fundamental laws of the universe/multiverse. It's even possible that we are all inside of some beings science experiment and every single "law of physics" we've discovered has been artificially created for us. But whatever the nature of reality is, there is a nature, and everything stems from it. That's the only thing that makes sense.
So you're saying that god can't exist because the very existence of such a being is impossible? But even if it did exist it really wouldn't? I agree.
Depending on your definition of "god." I believe true free will to be logically impossible. A being could no more have free will than it could make 1+1=3 without redefining the terms "1", "+", "=", and "3". So if your definition of a god requires it to be able to do the logically impossible, the existence of such a being is a logical impossibility itself.
And why must the universe obey your "laws"? Why must it be consistent? Do you really think we humans can simply catalog every phenomenon and neatly line them up for a sum total view of our universe? The fact that we are inside of it makes this seem highly unlikely to me (see Godel's incompleteness theorem).my laws, they're the universe's own laws. Or if there are multiple universes, they're the multiverse's laws. And if you'd bothered to read my post instead of skimming it, you'd know that I don't think humans will ever know everything there is to know about these laws.
There are souls and magic and God(s) and hundreds of other wonders unseen; you may simply be too science-blind to experience them. In your universe, do love and curiosity and unease and boredom consist of nothing more than chemicals? The richness of human experience cannot be fully analyzed, and if you try to do so you become a little less alive.
Whatever these things consist of, they obey laws just like everything else. If understanding a magic trick makes you less alive, don't try to understand it. That's your choice, even if it is predetermined.
I thought the whole concept of a God(s) was that the God(s) is the one who made up the "laws of nature" and the universe in the first place and can bend or break them at the God(s)'s will/desire (since he/she/they are the one(s) who laid that down in the first place)? Or am I missing something from your argument? Not trying to get in on the whole "Does Free Will Exist?" debate, just trying to get your point... if you have one.
Well, it does actually touch on Free Will since I believe that even God would be a slave to It's own nature. If God exists, as far as everyone and everything else is concerned the law of the Universe could be "whatever the hell God wants, is." However, not even God could control what to want. In essence the fundamental law of the universe would be God's nature, whatever that is, but nothing can ultimately control it's own nature because any decisions to change one's nature stem from the current nature (as well as external input of course, though for God there may not be any external input.)