You seem to present your view as "the Real Christian standpoint". There is not a "Real Christian standpoint" on any issue. The closest items to complete consensus would be "Jesus was a real man" and "there is a God." A very large percentage of Christians believe that Jesus was divine and the Son of God, too.
From what I understand, a little incest doesn't result in high probabilities of birth defects. It's only multiple generations where that happens.
Incest is used to breed animals. Greyhounds, I think. Incest can enhance traits. Get two animals with a trait to breed, you are more likely to have offspring with that trait. Unfortunately, that works for traits like speed and whatever are common negative traits in greyhounds. Increasing a low probability of birth defects is considered a BAD thing in our society, however. And, trying to breed "good" traits sounds too much like Nazi eugenics to a lot of people.
I've seen like 3 definitions of Geek/nerd. I use yet another set of definitions.
A nerd is someone interested in some intellectual pursuit(s). This might be literature, science, or technology. This version of nerd seems to be more acceptable, since there is increasingly more money in it. And, that was been showcased by the internet bubble. Interest in these things is often helped by intelligence.
A geek is someone who is intelligent and have poor social skills. Geeks often have REALLY strong interests in particular subjects. These two things converge to create things like the Star Trek subculture. Different qualities are considered important for the Star Trek social scene. Knowledge and understanding of the subject seems to be valued. Understanding would be helped by intelligence.
Given the intelligence factor in both these definitions, a lot of people would be both. General science fiction seems to be one of these. I consider good science fiction to be both literature and science, so that would put it in the nerd category. Obsession with it would make it part of the geek category. Science fiction fans seem to be worse socially than non-SF fans, so that would put a lot of them in the geek category.
I don't mean either definition to be a particular insult, just a description. I consider myself both. I don't care for Star Trek much, so don't know as much about its fans. I'm going by stereotypes, which often exist for valid reasons. I am a big fan of SF, though, so might be more accurate discussing it.
Also, I've seen the definitions flipped by people in usage.
That sounds reasonable. I didn't read it until I was about 25. The reason I read it was because I was trying to read Heinlein(him being one of the classic SF authors). I thought the title indicated a plot that might be interesting. I like SF with religious connections--the more non-tradional, the better. However, the plot seemed completely unoriginal and the characters were the same stereotypes I'd read in several other Heinlein novels.
I read that and I Will Fear No Evil about the same time. I Will Fear No Evil might've been worse. They are also in competition with Battlefield Earth for my "worst book EVER" prize. I haven't read anything by him since, and don't know if I will. But, given how many people say those two suck, and the Moon Mistress book is good, I might try that one. I did like Stranger, Friday, and Starship Troopers. Not sure if I'd like Stranger, now, though.
I don't see how this decision doesn't break freedom of speech. However, wouldn't Ethnic Cleansing put out be a LITTLE more about hate crime stuff? I mean, it's object is to kill "sub-humans" -- i.e. Blacks and Latinos -- and their "masters," the Jews, who are portrayed as the personification of evil. The ads said, "Celebrate Martin Luther King Day with a virtual Race War!" http://www.adl.org/videogames/videogames_print.a sp
No one seemed to mention the fact that online backups have the benefit of being OFF-SITE. So, if your building burns down, or whatever, you don't lose all your data. Of course, whether that matters depends upon how valuable the data is compared to the building...
If you wish to compare the number of senses used, do so. Books only use one sense. Unless you read them aloud or get something out of the tactile sensation of a book. A few people do those, usually books only use sight, though.
Movies can push the imagination, too. A lot of people seemed to have had their imaginations pushed by the Matrix, with the theme of false reality.
I generally agree that books can push the imagination more easily. Frank Herbert is the best example that comes to mind with that. He pushed the imagination a LOT on every page. It was so packed with stuff, it's about as hard to read as a textbook. That's a good thing.
I got that Barbie game in a pack of NES games I recently downloaded. Checked it out because I'd heard about it as THE game for girls. Meaning, for a while it was pretty much the only game that had been written FOR girls, even though it sucked.
It looked like a completely standard side scroller.
You jump over stuff. The control sucked. Things hurt you. What I saw were floating tennis rackets. It was bad enough I didn't stick around long enough to find out whether there were weapons. Given the setting(Barbie) they probably would've been given some label other than "weapons", if there were any.
Science fiction is a good potential for ads. Give the impression that "this product is the future." I caught a Zima advertisement in Babylon 5, once. Sure, it's believable that everyone will want to drink flat Sprite in the future...
That's what I was guessing was the reason for the advertisement, anyway.
As a kid, I'd play games in arcades after work until midnight. I only did it on weekends, though. I don't see any shitty parenting on my parents' part. After the arcade closed, we'd drive around. I don't think I'd have been better off if I'd been kicked out of the arcade at 10. They did have a curfew for under 18, too. Only really enforced by one cop, though, so it didn't really affect anyone's actions.
And, yes, I got good grades in high school(slightly better than 4.0 an a weighted grade scale).
Those of us who live by algorithms should recognize that there are some sorts of human creative intelligence which cannot be captured by formulas, or replaced by them (see physicist Roger Penrose's books on this). If something like this firm's algorithm is really accurate, it should be possible to evolve a neural net to compose pop songs simply by having the success of its efforts defined by feedback from the formula. Would you find living in that world inspiring?
I think there is an obligatory reference to 1984 here. Someone just this week told me that quite a few years ago, someone sold several books that were written by software. I guess, almost--the publisher cancelled the deal when they found out. Both are labelled "creative", but a lot of both of them are just slightly different skins wrapped around the same thing.
Was the Matrix game set between movies 2 & 3? Did they do that because they knew that some Matrix fans would want their "Matrix fix" between movies, and could make ~$50 by giving it to them? Or was the game an ad for the next movie--to get gamers excited about the third movie coming out?
I wonder what factor the price of a movie (~$10) in comparison to the cost of game ($50) has on business models. Also, the cost of producing a movie compared to a game. On the other hand, a popular movie clearly brings in more money than a popular game, due to the wider audience. I would think the latter would have a bigger effect on business models.
I'm constantly hearing women say they think penises are not particularly attractive, look silly, and things like that. Gay guys, too. These aren't women I'm dating, so it's not meant as a hint.;)
Sure, women drool over mens' bodies. Just not genetalia as much as men drool over womens'.
From www.m-w.com: Main Entry: irregardless Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gard-l&s Function: adverb Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless Date: circa 1912 nonstandard : REGARDLESS usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
It creates email addresses on the fly, and forwards email to my real email address. If I buy something from amazon.com, I'll create an address like amazon@myUsername.endjunk.com. If I start getting spam at that address, I block email to that address, and I also know who the bastard is--and don't go to that website anymore.
I think the rating system is bad because it's too simplistic. I don't know the specifics, but it's obviously something like X amount of sex/violence=>M-Rating. So, (some) parents just let others decide what is an appropriate amount for their kids.
I've seen nothing saying that video games are causally related to long term aggression or violence. Or, the "objectification of women"(for the rare sex stuff). Not that I think it's neccessarily bad to be treated as a sex object. I wouldn't mind it occasionally.
I think parental involvement and control are fine, but I don't think requiring a clerk to control what someone sees is good.
Kids watching porn or whatever doesn't bother me, either. If parents think kids need the world shielded from them, let the parents do the shielding. I see no reason to require some clerk selling software to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to present your view as "the Real Christian standpoint". There is not a "Real Christian standpoint" on any issue. The closest items to complete consensus would be "Jesus was a real man" and "there is a God." A very large percentage of Christians believe that Jesus was divine and the Son of God, too.
From what I understand, a little incest doesn't result in high probabilities of birth defects. It's only multiple generations where that happens.
Incest is used to breed animals. Greyhounds, I think. Incest can enhance traits. Get two animals with a trait to breed, you are more likely to have offspring with that trait. Unfortunately, that works for traits like speed and whatever are common negative traits in greyhounds. Increasing a low probability of birth defects is considered a BAD thing in our society, however. And, trying to breed "good" traits sounds too much like Nazi eugenics to a lot of people.
I've seen like 3 definitions of Geek/nerd. I use yet another set of definitions.
A nerd is someone interested in some intellectual pursuit(s). This might be literature, science, or technology. This version of nerd seems to be more acceptable, since there is increasingly more money in it. And, that was been showcased by the internet bubble. Interest in these things is often helped by intelligence.
A geek is someone who is intelligent and have poor social skills. Geeks often have REALLY strong interests in particular subjects. These two things converge to create things like the Star Trek subculture. Different qualities are considered important for the Star Trek social scene. Knowledge and understanding of the subject seems to be valued. Understanding would be helped by intelligence.
Given the intelligence factor in both these definitions, a lot of people would be both. General science fiction seems to be one of these. I consider good science fiction to be both literature and science, so that would put it in the nerd category. Obsession with it would make it part of the geek category. Science fiction fans seem to be worse socially than non-SF fans, so that would put a lot of them in the geek category.
I don't mean either definition to be a particular insult, just a description. I consider myself both. I don't care for Star Trek much, so don't know as much about its fans. I'm going by stereotypes, which often exist for valid reasons. I am a big fan of SF, though, so might be more accurate discussing it.
Also, I've seen the definitions flipped by people in usage.
Um, aren't ALL words labels? Do you think we should avoid speaking to prevent thinking in stereotypes?
That sounds reasonable. I didn't read it until I was about 25. The reason I read it was because I was trying to read Heinlein(him being one of the classic SF authors). I thought the title indicated a plot that might be interesting. I like SF with religious connections--the more non-tradional, the better. However, the plot seemed completely unoriginal and the characters were the same stereotypes I'd read in several other Heinlein novels.
I read that and I Will Fear No Evil about the same time. I Will Fear No Evil might've been worse. They are also in competition with Battlefield Earth for my "worst book EVER" prize. I haven't read anything by him since, and don't know if I will. But, given how many people say those two suck, and the Moon Mistress book is good, I might try that one. I did like Stranger, Friday, and Starship Troopers. Not sure if I'd like Stranger, now, though.
I don't see how this decision doesn't break freedom of speech. However, wouldn't Ethnic Cleansing put out be a LITTLE more about hate crime stuff? I mean, it's object is to kill "sub-humans" -- i.e. Blacks and Latinos -- and their "masters," the Jews, who are portrayed as the personification of evil. The ads said, "Celebrate Martin Luther King Day with a virtual Race War!"a sp
http://www.adl.org/videogames/videogames_print.
No one seemed to mention the fact that online backups have the benefit of being OFF-SITE. So, if your building burns down, or whatever, you don't lose all your data. Of course, whether that matters depends upon how valuable the data is compared to the building...
If you wish to compare the number of senses used, do so. Books only use one sense. Unless you read them aloud or get something out of the tactile sensation of a book. A few people do those, usually books only use sight, though.
Movies can push the imagination, too. A lot of people seemed to have had their imaginations pushed by the Matrix, with the theme of false reality.
I generally agree that books can push the imagination more easily. Frank Herbert is the best example that comes to mind with that. He pushed the imagination a LOT on every page. It was so packed with stuff, it's about as hard to read as a textbook. That's a good thing.
I got that Barbie game in a pack of NES games I recently downloaded. Checked it out because I'd heard about it as THE game for girls. Meaning, for a while it was pretty much the only game that had been written FOR girls, even though it sucked.
It looked like a completely standard side scroller.
You jump over stuff. The control sucked.
Things hurt you. What I saw were floating tennis rackets. It was bad enough I didn't stick around long enough to find out whether there were weapons. Given the setting(Barbie) they probably would've been given some label other than "weapons", if there were any.
Science fiction is a good potential for ads. Give the impression that "this product is the future." I caught a Zima advertisement in Babylon 5, once. Sure, it's believable that everyone will want to drink flat Sprite in the future...
That's what I was guessing was the reason for the advertisement, anyway.
I've played games like that. We called them drinking games!
As a kid, I'd play games in arcades after work until midnight. I only did it on weekends, though. I don't see any shitty parenting on my parents' part. After the arcade closed, we'd drive around. I don't think I'd have been better off if I'd been kicked out of the arcade at 10. They did have a curfew for under 18, too. Only really enforced by one cop, though, so it didn't really affect anyone's actions.
And, yes, I got good grades in high school(slightly better than 4.0 an a weighted grade scale).
Bummer, you're going to be getting a lot of shit for a while.
Those of us who live by algorithms should recognize that there are some sorts of human creative intelligence which cannot be captured by formulas, or replaced by them (see physicist Roger Penrose's books on this). If something like this firm's algorithm is really accurate, it should be possible to evolve a neural net to compose pop songs simply by having the success of its efforts defined by feedback from the formula. Would you find living in that world inspiring?
I think there is an obligatory reference to 1984 here. Someone just this week told me that quite a few years ago, someone sold several books that were written by software. I guess, almost--the publisher cancelled the deal when they found out. Both are labelled "creative", but a lot of both of them are just slightly different skins wrapped around the same thing.
I've got a prof whose "big thing" is genetic algorithms. At one point, he had the best solution to Max-Clique, using genetic algorithms.
Given how easy that would be for a MMOG company to check, it seems extremely unlikely.
People can do that anyway, and cut out the middle man(vouchers). Just give someone the money.
Not only that, but knowledge is biased. There is no such thing as "true objectivity".
Was the Matrix game set between movies 2 & 3? Did they do that because they knew that some Matrix fans would want their "Matrix fix" between movies, and could make ~$50 by giving it to them? Or was the game an ad for the next movie--to get gamers excited about the third movie coming out?
I wonder what factor the price of a movie (~$10) in comparison to the cost of game ($50) has on business models. Also, the cost of producing a movie compared to a game. On the other hand, a popular movie clearly brings in more money than a popular game, due to the wider audience. I would think the latter would have a bigger effect on business models.
I'm constantly hearing women say they think penises are not particularly attractive, look silly, and things like that. Gay guys, too. These aren't women I'm dating, so it's not meant as a hint. ;)
Sure, women drool over mens' bodies. Just not genetalia as much as men drool over womens'.
1a) irregardless isn't a word :)
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: irregardless
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gard-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Thanks to peoples' shitty English, it IS a word.
It creates email addresses on the fly, and forwards email to my real email address. If I buy something from amazon.com, I'll create an address like amazon@myUsername.endjunk.com. If I start getting spam at that address, I block email to that address, and I also know who the bastard is--and don't go to that website anymore.
Is "Tough Guise" that popular a documentary? I just watched it for a class on gender.
I think the rating system is bad because it's too simplistic. I don't know the specifics, but it's obviously something like X amount of sex/violence=>M-Rating. So, (some) parents just let others decide what is an appropriate amount for their kids.
I've seen nothing saying that video games are causally related to long term aggression or violence. Or, the "objectification of women"(for the rare sex stuff). Not that I think it's neccessarily bad to be treated as a sex object. I wouldn't mind it occasionally.
I think parental involvement and control are fine, but I don't think requiring a clerk to control what someone sees is good.
Kids watching porn or whatever doesn't bother me, either. If parents think kids need the world shielded from them, let the parents do the shielding. I see no reason to require some clerk selling software to do it.