Every time there's a Lego article on Slashdot, someone says basically the same thing.
While Lego does make extremely specialized pieces from time to time, most of the pieces they make, new or old, are very versatile. I'm still buying and playing with Lego as an adult, and I probably would have tired of it long ago if it was just bricks. The Star Wars sets got me back into Lego just when I thought I had outgrown it, and not just because of the theme. The Star Wars sets have had a very good track record when it comes to the pieces involved. Most of the sets have very solid construction, and use a lot more of the standard pieces than some of the themes from the mid 90s. Star Wars also kicked off a new trend of color variety--brown, orange, dark gray, green, and tan all became common colors.
Kids who have a bunch of specialized pieces and nothing else will admittedly be starting at a disadvantage, but having some of each opens up so many more possibilities than before. Even the most specialized pieces can be used in novel ways with a little creativity.
Finally, a slightly larger one. This is one of my favorite Lego creations ever (again, not made by me). The color scheme and tons of the little details would not have been possible with even the Legos that were available ten years ago:
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/13715
I didn't read the story yet myself, but Nintendo said before that all first-party titles would be free. The fees are only for the games made by other companies. Or did that change?
There's a small problem with your statement. "Controller" and "flashy graphics" are not at all interchangeable.
Let's say you're playing baseball. Not a video game, but the real sport. You're at bat. Which of these will have a bigger effect on the game?
1) Everyone in the crowd is wearing the same shirt. You cannot see anyone holding a beer. There are no clouds in the sky. If you inspect the brick walls of the stadium up close, you will see that the bricks are actually just painted on smooth concrete. Your batting helmet is not shiny. Your pants are perfectly white, with no brown or green stains.
Predictions only need to use the future tense to a certain degree. They can involve the past as well. You can predict the future discovery of something from the past. I'll start with an example far-removed from the Big Bang.
We read a diary of someone long dead. The diary gives vague descriptions of where the person lived as a child and says that they buried money under tree. We make a guess as to the location described, and we find a tree there. We predict that we will find money buried under the tree. If we do find money buried under the tree, it supports our guess as to where the person lived.
As for the Big Bang, we can make predictions of future discoveries. We can predict speeds and locations of objects that we haven't yet studied, based on our guess as to when and how the Big Bang occured.
I have no problem with your definition of God. I have no problem with a definition of Intelligent Design that can co-exist with evolution.
The thing is, your definition of Intelligent Design is not shared by everyone. I actually don't see the need for the official theory of Intelligent Design in your beliefs.
Doesn't ID start with the idea that (in my own words) complexity cannot arise from simplicity?
You seem to be arguing more that an intelligent designer is possible, not that ID can be directly inferred from complexity.
Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of something else to add:
If God is infinitely simple and God created complex things, then we are saying that it is possibly to attribute the creation of a complex thing to something simpler. Why does it have to be something infinitely simple? Couldn't something moderately simple create something complex?
I guess the issue then is how you define "intelligence" for use in intelligent design. My concept of intelligence consists of, at the very least, inputs and outputs with something in between.
On the scale of simplicity, wouldn't a God that does not create complex things be closer to infinite simplicity than a God that does create complex things?
There is a pretty obvious follow-up to that statement:
If God can exist without an intelligent designer, why can't other complex things exist without an intelligent designer?
Slashdot Mirror
Games are $50.
Every time there's a Lego article on Slashdot, someone says basically the same thing. While Lego does make extremely specialized pieces from time to time, most of the pieces they make, new or old, are very versatile. I'm still buying and playing with Lego as an adult, and I probably would have tired of it long ago if it was just bricks. The Star Wars sets got me back into Lego just when I thought I had outgrown it, and not just because of the theme. The Star Wars sets have had a very good track record when it comes to the pieces involved. Most of the sets have very solid construction, and use a lot more of the standard pieces than some of the themes from the mid 90s. Star Wars also kicked off a new trend of color variety--brown, orange, dark gray, green, and tan all became common colors.
3 3999
Kids who have a bunch of specialized pieces and nothing else will admittedly be starting at a disadvantage, but having some of each opens up so many more possibilities than before. Even the most specialized pieces can be used in novel ways with a little creativity.
Check out some of these creations and see if they change your mind about the usefulness of specialized pieces: http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/18131
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/6942
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/18117
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/21943
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/6049
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/7004
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=1
A few notes: I intentionally chose small creations. None of them bear much similarity to any specific sets released by Lego, nor were they made by people working for Lego. Each one was made by a different person, and none of them are mine.
Finally, a slightly larger one. This is one of my favorite Lego creations ever (again, not made by me). The color scheme and tons of the little details would not have been possible with even the Legos that were available ten years ago: http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/13715
That would be "touché."
I'm only a few miles away from Bryn Mawr. I guess it's about time I buy an insurance policy that covers robot attacks.
I didn't read the story yet myself, but Nintendo said before that all first-party titles would be free. The fees are only for the games made by other companies. Or did that change?
Let's say you're playing baseball. Not a video game, but the real sport. You're at bat. Which of these will have a bigger effect on the game?
1) Everyone in the crowd is wearing the same shirt. You cannot see anyone holding a beer. There are no clouds in the sky. If you inspect the brick walls of the stadium up close, you will see that the bricks are actually just painted on smooth concrete. Your batting helmet is not shiny. Your pants are perfectly white, with no brown or green stains.
2) Instead of a bat, you're holding a golf club.
We read a diary of someone long dead. The diary gives vague descriptions of where the person lived as a child and says that they buried money under tree. We make a guess as to the location described, and we find a tree there. We predict that we will find money buried under the tree. If we do find money buried under the tree, it supports our guess as to where the person lived.
As for the Big Bang, we can make predictions of future discoveries. We can predict speeds and locations of objects that we haven't yet studied, based on our guess as to when and how the Big Bang occured.
The thing is, your definition of Intelligent Design is not shared by everyone. I actually don't see the need for the official theory of Intelligent Design in your beliefs.
Doesn't ID start with the idea that (in my own words) complexity cannot arise from simplicity? You seem to be arguing more that an intelligent designer is possible, not that ID can be directly inferred from complexity.
Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of something else to add: If God is infinitely simple and God created complex things, then we are saying that it is possibly to attribute the creation of a complex thing to something simpler. Why does it have to be something infinitely simple? Couldn't something moderately simple create something complex?
I guess the issue then is how you define "intelligence" for use in intelligent design. My concept of intelligence consists of, at the very least, inputs and outputs with something in between. On the scale of simplicity, wouldn't a God that does not create complex things be closer to infinite simplicity than a God that does create complex things?
There is a pretty obvious follow-up to that statement: If God can exist without an intelligent designer, why can't other complex things exist without an intelligent designer?