They (well, other than the nukes) sure did help the United States win the war in Iraq
Wow. So not only do you believe that what we're fighting in right now isn't the war in Iraq, you believe we already won the war, and now we're just inovlved in some "post-war" activity.
I literally don't even know where to begin.
Since the war is over, you might want to let the rest of the world know. Go! Run along! The war is over!
most of the science Al Gore uses is junk science or poorly interpreted science
Here's something you might try: provide some examples of your accurate science, and proof of why your interpretation is correct.
And maybe offer up some credentials.
And opinions of respected peers.
Can you do that? Or are trolls allergic to due diligence?
(those last two are rhetorical, don't worry.)
Article seemed pretty specific in its issue with the Start button, which I don't really agree with: A game specifically asks a player to "press start to begin." When prompted, the newbie gamer looks down at a confusing set of buttons, thinks for a second as to which button they need to press, then they hit it.
I don't have an XBox, so I can't completely speak to your point, but how can you have a game "just start" if there's some customization you need to do, such as selecting a specific character? I agree that most games of late kick off with some useless cutscene that just prolongs the actual playing of the game.
1. Never ask a player if they want to save their game.
Because the office world has taught us that auto-save never, ever ends up writing over data we wanted to keep. Ditch the word "never", let players save when they want to, but also auto-save to a different save file.
2. Always say "press any button" to start a game.
So after years of having to press the Start button, gamers can't seem to remember where that button is located? Weird. What if the main screen has some different options that the player needs to choose? Perhaps the user wants to select a different keymapping (rule #3!)? Wouldn't that necessitate that the press a button other than Start? I always assumed that the wii requires specific button presses to start games so that games don't accidentally start because the wiimote got dropped, etc...
Here's a concept for you: Read The Fucking Article.
Since you need some help with click-clicking your way around the interweb, here's the relevant sentence:
"INTERPOL is seeking the help of the public to try to identify this man, photographed sexually abusing children in a series of images posted on the Internet."
You ask: Where are these supposed pictures of an adult "molesting" a child? All I can see is 4 pictures of an adult sitting around...
Correct. Interpol didn't post the explicit pictures, probably because posting pictures of the molested kids isn't necessary. Instead, they posted images that they needed the public's help with, that is, headshots of the assailant.
And you state: Oh, and "alleged" because that's his status until he has been convicted of a crime by a judge
I'm not referring to the legalese definition of "alleged". Are you telling me that when given incontrovertible proof of a crime taking place, your thought process is "Gee George, that only looks like an alleged crime. Can I go pet the pretty lady's hair now?", you fucking Lennie?
Because if someone's being arrested without being told why, it's just totally silly, foolish, and insane for them to:
Resist said arrest
Pull away from said arrest, or in your words, "assault"
Or verbally shout at a cop who is abusing their authority.
Man, I really wish I could live in your world where everyone who signs up to be a cop is an A-class citizen, and even if they're not, their will should still be complied with, just because they're a cop.
When you believe that the orders of an authority figure should be complied with in silence, just because they're an authority figure, that rightfully earns you the rank of fascist, or at minimum, ignorant.
"Alleged" implies that a picture of an adult molesting a child, constitutes only an "alleged" crime.
"There were no rape report from anyone" implies that a picture of the act being conducted isn't enough. That the 4 year old Cambodian sex slave needs to file a proper report.
In a discussion regarding the photographically documented molestation of small children, you want to expand the discussion to include statutory rape allegations between teenagers. How about we also talk about taxidermy and monster trucks? Because if you think there's any similarity between the teenage sex issue and child molestation, then any "discussion" with you might as well go down those tangents as well.
I have said nothing regarding statutory rape of the classically defined "19 yr old with a 17 yr old" scenario. I have spoken to the specific issue of adults molesting children. And even more specifically, to the issue of their being photographic evidence of said adult molesting said child, in which the original post implied to as not being sufficient evidence.
"The intent here is to intimidate and discourage discussion"
Please.
You're discouraging discussion by broadening the topic to include sex between a 19 and a 17 year old, while the discussion at hand is specific to child molestation.
You're discouraging discussion by inferring that because I'm against adults molesting small children, I don't think a moral code can exist that punishes child molestation while not punishing teenage sex.
You're discouraging discussion, because you're using my specific point, to argue against a POV that I do not hold.
A discussion cannot be had, if you insist on jumping off on a tangent and start attacking an argument that I'm not even making in the first place.
Somewhere in there, you really should have articulated a point specific to my post, instead of some odd rant against "Perverted Justice" that has nothing to do with what I said.
Let's look at the specific issue again:
There are pictures of a grown man molesting children.
Your argument is that pictures of a grown man molesting children isn't sufficient evidence for that grown man to be prosecuted; you require the molested children to file a report.
You're a fucking ~brain~. Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to that could enlighten me to the expanded worldview where pictures of child molestation occupies a place in some moral gray area?
You don't need a rape "report", if there are images of the assailant molesting a fucking kid, numbnuts. Are you attempting to play some half-assed version of Devil's Advocate, or are you just that ignorant?
If for example I had a "taste box" that made everything taste like chocolate...it doesn't prove that nothing exists that tastes of chocolate.
The point you're missing, is that for god-folk, "God" is the only thing capable of arousing those feelings of spirtuality. It's their litmus test for the existance of God: "this feeling I have can only be created by God, ergo, God exists".
What science has show is that this is not a valid conclusion, because the hypothesis of "this feeling can only be created by God" has been proven false.
While you're smugly sitting there with your "I say tough" bullshit posturing, realize that retailers not having to store your CC info, would benefit you.
Sure does make a whole lot of sense to screw yourself because of something so infantile as spite.
I guess the point that you're trying to get across is that we shouldn't have to have upgrades to get around bugs that are introduced by the crappy DRM to begin with, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.
Exactly. A device that plays physical media should not require internet access in order to function. Whether it be a direct internet connection to the device itself, or the use of a computer's internet connection to download and burn an ISO, Joe User should not have to be burdened with crippleware any time he buys or rents a flick and just wants to pop it in.
Many players are upgradeable. For both HD and Blueray, you should make sure yours has an online upgrade capability
Incorrect. The sentence we were looking for was "a physical-media player shouldn't require a connection to the internet". Thank you for playing, may you have an interesting life.
your post doesn't bode well for your intellectual capacity. First off, the "balancing a budget" reference is an analogy.
Or, my intellect has trouble parsing poorly-worded sentences. Let's take another look:
"there is no small amount of hubris on the part of people who think they can "fix" the Earth when they can't handle more fundamental things like balancing...a national budget." (bolded for your comprehension)
Hhhmmm...4 out of 5 critics agree, the above sentence implies that the same people trying to fix the Earth are the same who have the ability to balance a national budget.
Nice try at a zing there, Senor Arrogance.
Whales and elephants don't breed often; that would retard the propagation of genetic changes.
Look asshole, maybe to you a whale/elephant hybrid is "retarded", but to me, it's "fucking awesome".
or, (if you prefer a less vulgar joke)
Man, I really gotta start watching the Discovery Channel more often. I always assumed that whales and elephants didn't breed at all, but "not often"? Wicked!
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't expect the people who are trying to "fix" the Earth, i.e.: climatologists to have an expert opinion on running a balanced budget.
terror is terror. What about all the "we done gotta fight'em over there, so we don't have to fight'em over here" bullshit rhetoric, when we already have our own terrorists in our backyard?
While that is true, I'm speaking more to the issue that when these bombings (and attempted bombings) take place, the headlines and tv-crawlers read "bombing at abortion clinic" instead of the "OMGZ THE TERRORISTS ARE HERE!" that a Muslim bombing or bombing attempt receives.
While the article is about "state sponsored" acts, the fucking ~discussion~ is encompassing all. The fucking discussion is about how the evil Muslims are so much worse than the harp-playing Jesus lovers.
Slashdot Mirror
People who don't want to worry about XSS vulnerabilities?
People who don't want to worry about stolen session cookies?
Wow. So not only do you believe that what we're fighting in right now isn't the war in Iraq, you believe we already won the war, and now we're just inovlved in some "post-war" activity.
I literally don't even know where to begin.
Since the war is over, you might want to let the rest of the world know. Go! Run along! The war is over!
All of our whiz-bang tanks, planes, and nukes sure are making us win that war in Iraq.
Here's something you might try: provide some examples of your accurate science, and proof of why your interpretation is correct.
And maybe offer up some credentials.
And opinions of respected peers.
Can you do that? Or are trolls allergic to due diligence?
(those last two are rhetorical, don't worry.)
A game specifically asks a player to "press start to begin." When prompted, the newbie gamer looks down at a confusing set of buttons, thinks for a second as to which button they need to press, then they hit it.
I don't have an XBox, so I can't completely speak to your point, but how can you have a game "just start" if there's some customization you need to do, such as selecting a specific character? I agree that most games of late kick off with some useless cutscene that just prolongs the actual playing of the game.
Because the office world has taught us that auto-save never, ever ends up writing over data we wanted to keep. Ditch the word "never", let players save when they want to, but also auto-save to a different save file.
2. Always say "press any button" to start a game.
So after years of having to press the Start button, gamers can't seem to remember where that button is located? Weird. What if the main screen has some different options that the player needs to choose? Perhaps the user wants to select a different keymapping (rule #3!)? Wouldn't that necessitate that the press a button other than Start? I always assumed that the wii requires specific button presses to start games so that games don't accidentally start because the wiimote got dropped, etc...
Since you need some help with click-clicking your way around the interweb, here's the relevant sentence:
"INTERPOL is seeking the help of the public to try to identify this man, photographed sexually abusing children in a series of images posted on the Internet."
You ask: Where are these supposed pictures of an adult "molesting" a child? All I can see is 4 pictures of an adult sitting around...
Correct. Interpol didn't post the explicit pictures, probably because posting pictures of the molested kids isn't necessary. Instead, they posted images that they needed the public's help with, that is, headshots of the assailant.
And you state: Oh, and "alleged" because that's his status until he has been convicted of a crime by a judge
I'm not referring to the legalese definition of "alleged". Are you telling me that when given incontrovertible proof of a crime taking place, your thought process is "Gee George, that only looks like an alleged crime. Can I go pet the pretty lady's hair now?", you fucking Lennie?
about as sure as I am that you read the fucking summary, let alone the fucking article.
Because if someone's being arrested without being told why, it's just totally silly, foolish, and insane for them to:
Resist said arrest
Pull away from said arrest, or in your words, "assault"
Or verbally shout at a cop who is abusing their authority.
Man, I really wish I could live in your world where everyone who signs up to be a cop is an A-class citizen, and even if they're not, their will should still be complied with, just because they're a cop.
When you believe that the orders of an authority figure should be complied with in silence, just because they're an authority figure, that rightfully earns you the rank of fascist, or at minimum, ignorant.
Will we fall off the Earth if we sail to the edge of the horizon? Who knows?
"Alleged" implies that a picture of an adult molesting a child, constitutes only an "alleged" crime.
"There were no rape report from anyone" implies that a picture of the act being conducted isn't enough. That the 4 year old Cambodian sex slave needs to file a proper report.
In a discussion regarding the photographically documented molestation of small children, you want to expand the discussion to include statutory rape allegations between teenagers. How about we also talk about taxidermy and monster trucks? Because if you think there's any similarity between the teenage sex issue and child molestation, then any "discussion" with you might as well go down those tangents as well.
I have said nothing regarding statutory rape of the classically defined "19 yr old with a 17 yr old" scenario. I have spoken to the specific issue of adults molesting children. And even more specifically, to the issue of their being photographic evidence of said adult molesting said child, in which the original post implied to as not being sufficient evidence.
"The intent here is to intimidate and discourage discussion"
Please.
You're discouraging discussion by broadening the topic to include sex between a 19 and a 17 year old, while the discussion at hand is specific to child molestation.
You're discouraging discussion by inferring that because I'm against adults molesting small children, I don't think a moral code can exist that punishes child molestation while not punishing teenage sex.
You're discouraging discussion, because you're using my specific point, to argue against a POV that I do not hold.
A discussion cannot be had, if you insist on jumping off on a tangent and start attacking an argument that I'm not even making in the first place.
Somewhere in there, you really should have articulated a point specific to my post, instead of some odd rant against "Perverted Justice" that has nothing to do with what I said. Let's look at the specific issue again:
There are pictures of a grown man molesting children.
Your argument is that pictures of a grown man molesting children isn't sufficient evidence for that grown man to be prosecuted; you require the molested children to file a report.
You're a fucking ~brain~. Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to that could enlighten me to the expanded worldview where pictures of child molestation occupies a place in some moral gray area?
You don't need a rape "report", if there are images of the assailant molesting a fucking kid, numbnuts. Are you attempting to play some half-assed version of Devil's Advocate, or are you just that ignorant?
The point you're missing, is that for god-folk, "God" is the only thing capable of arousing those feelings of spirtuality. It's their litmus test for the existance of God: "this feeling I have can only be created by God, ergo, God exists".
What science has show is that this is not a valid conclusion, because the hypothesis of "this feeling can only be created by God" has been proven false.
Sure does make a whole lot of sense to screw yourself because of something so infantile as spite.
Exactly. A device that plays physical media should not require internet access in order to function. Whether it be a direct internet connection to the device itself, or the use of a computer's internet connection to download and burn an ISO, Joe User should not have to be burdened with crippleware any time he buys or rents a flick and just wants to pop it in.
Incorrect. The sentence we were looking for was "a physical-media player shouldn't require a connection to the internet". Thank you for playing, may you have an interesting life.
Or, my intellect has trouble parsing poorly-worded sentences. Let's take another look:
"there is no small amount of hubris on the part of people who think they can "fix" the Earth when they can't handle more fundamental things like balancing...a national budget." (bolded for your comprehension)
Hhhmmm...4 out of 5 critics agree, the above sentence implies that the same people trying to fix the Earth are the same who have the ability to balance a national budget.
Nice try at a zing there, Senor Arrogance.
Look asshole, maybe to you a whale/elephant hybrid is "retarded", but to me, it's "fucking awesome".
or, (if you prefer a less vulgar joke)
Man, I really gotta start watching the Discovery Channel more often. I always assumed that whales and elephants didn't breed at all, but "not often"? Wicked!
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't expect the people who are trying to "fix" the Earth, i.e.: climatologists to have an expert opinion on running a balanced budget.
The Earth is our home, numbnuts.
terror is terror. What about all the "we done gotta fight'em over there, so we don't have to fight'em over here" bullshit rhetoric, when we already have our own terrorists in our backyard?
While that is true, I'm speaking more to the issue that when these bombings (and attempted bombings) take place, the headlines and tv-crawlers read "bombing at abortion clinic" instead of the "OMGZ THE TERRORISTS ARE HERE!" that a Muslim bombing or bombing attempt receives.
While the article is about "state sponsored" acts, the fucking ~discussion~ is encompassing all. The fucking discussion is about how the evil Muslims are so much worse than the harp-playing Jesus lovers.