When I say "atheistic scientists" I am using the word atheist as an adjective to describe the scientist. There are many many great Christians that use the scientific method to document God's creation. These Christians are scientists. They don't accept their findings as fact; rather, as tools to be used along with the creative possibility God gave them to create space programs, etc..
"Not false" to someone who believes in absolute truth means true. To someone who believes in relativism, "Not false" means "who knows?"
A scientist can believe in God. But there is no scientific evidence in support of God. Any scientist mixing their findings and God is no true scientist.
Actually, what I am saying is that space programs, computers, and cars have nowhere near the significance as a creator/savior. When using science as a tool to create, its great. Using science as a tool to destroy lives and cause eternal consequence is evil.
And what is religion? Surely a tool that destroys lives? More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other cause. There have been no crusades to convert people to evolution.
Why do my tax dollars have to pay for your belief, but yours don't have to pay for mine? You might want to reconsider your position. Home schooling growth is beginning to become out of control. The government funds schools per student. Each student a school loses hurts the school and students are leaving the education system in droves. Capitalism and free choice are about to destroy the public education system and birth a superior education system that takes place in the home, unless the politicians attempt to destroy home schooling and send our children to forced education (which is actually what is beginning to happen)
Because of the Constitution. I am granted a right to believe in Zeus, Inanna, God, A Dismembered Hand, or nothing if I so choose. Science is an important part of any education, and it is already trying to teach too much in too little time. There is no need to waste my child's science classroom time on something that is not even remotely a science. If your faith is so strong, it shouldn't be so hard for you to ignore the "harmful" bits. But I don't want your oppresive faith cutting into my son's biology classes.
The condescension here is dripping. You act as if your evidence is somehow valid and mine doesn't exist. Mine has existed for 2 millennia unchanged. Yours is new and is ever changing. I'm very confident of the mountains of evidence that support existence. The evidence is there. All you have to do is reach out and grab it.
It was meant to. Your evidence has existed unchanged because anyone who challenges it is excommunicated or killed. It is unchanged because when people propose facts they are met with torture and blind faith. I wouldn't be so proud of that, as all it proves is that change is actively resisted. Science is intelligent enough to understand that it doesn't know everything. Scientists are mature enough to accept changes to their theories. What evidence do you want me to reach out and grab? Saying "I believe it so it has to be true" is certainly not evidence.
Which facts? You are attempting to say that you have some corner on the market of "reason" and "facts". Are you to say that you and your tiny minority in the world are more reasonable than the rest?
My tiny minority? You mean the minority that comprises the largest single sect (unless, of course, you count the Orthodox churches, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and various Christ-confessing religions as a single sect)? What a strange minority, that. I would claim that I have a better corner on facts than you do, yes. Because I base my "beliefs" on observable, verifiable evidence. You base yours on a book that has not been changed in two thousand years that you believe witho
All of which have "acceptable" error. Which are not fact; rather, opinions or beliefs. I guess you'd probably "believe" differently than me.
The general premise of science is to explain. I am an engineer, and most of my friends are scientists and engineers. None of them hold science as an absolute truth, but rather a tool for understanding the world around them. I don't just apply blind faith to science. I accept an explanation only insofar as it is reasonably supported by facts.
This argument requires you to say, "I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God". I know of no fallacy in the Bible. You haven't presented evidence of fallacy; rather, merely made the claim that there is fallacy and that I'm ignoring that evidence. Every bit of alleged fallacy that I've been presented has physical evidence to debunk the allegation, of which the presenter most of the time says, "I don't believe your debunk as truth." Or... "You're so blind if you don't believe what I present as truth." The others become Christians.
I don't believe the Bible is the "literal word of God", so I don't think this argument is very strained for me to make. I can present evidence of fallacy if you would like:
Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
ISA 14:21 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."
DEU 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
JOH 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
JOH 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
MAT 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
Is that sufficient?
This argument requires the presenter to believe that scientific truth should somehow trump Biblical truth.
The problem here is that you call it scientific truth. Again, as I have pointed out, scientists tend not to blindly accept a theory. It is accepted until it has been disproved, at which point the theory is revised and updated to fit new data. Science is a work in progress. I think that gives it sufficient reason to be trusted more than a moldy book that people refuse to accept as fallible.
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. One part of Dima (a baby frozen mammoth) was 40,000, another part 26,000, and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9,000-10,000."
Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Cov. printing office, 1975), p. 30
Carbon dating tends to have issues if fire is involved. Honestly, I'm not overly surprised that there would be an issue there. Do you have any examples more recent than 1975? Perhaps you have an example of the flaws in uranium dating, since that can actually extend past 50,000 years?
Why are my peers and I always testing and debunking or improving our scientific theories/results if they are "facts"? Do our old theories/results cease to be facts once we improve upon them? How long do you improve upon then until you label them as fact?
You don't stop testing theories. You accept them as "not false" until you have rea
The Bible has not only been studied for 2k years, but withstood 2k years of scrutiny.
It has only withstood scrutiny by people with blind faith. It is easy for you to reject any counter-argument, because your defense is simply "I believe it is true so it is". Belief is not fact. A literal reading of the Bible as a completely accurate historical reading puts the universe at, what, 6000 years old? I don't know the exact number, but it is less than 10K. We can use carbon dating to identify fossils older than that. We can use other forms of dating that put the Earth at about 4.6 billion years old. These are not opinions or beliefs, but facts.
Science constantly faces scrutiny. As a scientist, your peers will always be testing and debunking or improving on your theories and results. The Bible does not face that. The arguments people have presented to you so far have met with "it is wrong because I believe something different".
I wouldn't want to come up with an actual good policy solution that will let parents and kids both keep their freedom and also reduce the harm that some of this stuff causes when it inevitably gets into their hands.
What harm is that, exactly? I watch porn, drink alcohol, play violent games, and watch violent movies. I'm also a productive and rational member of society.
It was completely irresponsible. They never intended to market GTA as an Adults Only game. Why was the content created in the first place? It had no business being in the code, ever.
The ESRB is meant to rate the *game*. If the code isn't used by the game, no harm. So you think the code shouldn't have been made? Fine, that's your opinion. My opinion on the subject is, I think it's funny. Part of the whole appeal to the series is how risque it is. It is a societal "no-no". And so the code was probably written as an effort to push some buttons. It was thought better of, and then it wasn't used. Big whoop. There is no point to jumping up and down ranting about how suddenly this has become AO material. The careless theft, murder, and destruction are just as bad. The game is already 17+. Polygon sex isn't going to damage a 17 year old more than the crusty porn mags hiding under their mattresses. Don't give me this "it never should have been written" crap. It is no more or less vile than any of the other code, except by an arbitrary (and stupid, IMO) societal stigma against sex.
The result is going to cost them millions of dollars, and some juvenile programmer is going to lose his job.
I fail to see how that relates. The only reason that result will occur is because politicians and parents are flipping out about something they don't understand. They seem to think that it is there, so it is part of the game. If parents took the time to understand the game they're handing their 12 year olds, they'd already know this game wasn't appropriate for them.
And that's the root of the whole problem. This is a puerile attack from both the political opportunists and the watch dog groups that have always had it in for this game. The subject is pointless. Who cares about polygon sex? There are hosts of weapons for me to brutally murder people with. Hosts of vehicles for me to steal and go crazy with. I can engage in prostitution and cop-killing. How is any of this less "adult only" content than sex? We have placed an arbitrary bias against sex in our (US) culture and use it to hide the rest of our problems.
Why is the ESRB involved? Because the game developer couldn't be trusted to clean their code. It doesn't matter that it's not accessible on the PS version or that they never intended for it to be accessible in any version. It didn't belong, and they got caught being sloppy.
As mentioned, the ESRB is designed to judge the *game*. This HotCoffee situation isn't even part of the game. Part of the code, yes, but not the game. What this boils down to is, you are placing the blame on the corporation for something a fan did. It is a mod. It opens up their code, yes, but it is a mod. Try blaming the person responsible.
I've seen the AVI, and personally I don't care about it one way or another. Except.... the ratings are rules, and they are there for a reason. Whether they intended for the content to be accessible or not, Rockstar created it. If they want to create that type of content, they should apply for AO ratings. Instead they bent the rules, said no one was ever supposed to see it, but never took responsibility for creating it in the first place.
You don't seem to understand the rating procedure. From the ESRB FAQ: "To get a game certified with an ESRB rating, publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining exactly what's in the game, and submit it to ESRB along with actual videotaped footage of the game, showing the most extreme content and an accurate representation of the context and product as a whole." They have to tell what is in the game, as well as show videotaped game footage. Well, the polygon sex isn't game content, and thus doesn't fall into either category. They followed the rules.
Ok... They put it in there, then locked it up, and didn't tell anyone. I.E., they deliberately obscured it's existance, to prevent it from being found. I think if you look up the word hid in a dictionary, like this one, you will find that what they did does, in fact, constitute hiding. It's not a matter of agreeing. The word "hide", as currently defined by modern english, perfectly describes what they did.
Meow, kitty.
By that reasoning, putting a winter coat in the closet for the summer is hiding it. More realistically, I don't want to use it but throwing it away seems a bit wasteful. Instead it gets put out of sight and out of mind. If you want to get dictionary anal on me, go for it. I really don't care. But we all know that's a bullshit definition. Hiding carries with it an implied malicious intent. Throw it around if you want, but I'm still not going to bite that line.
Exactly, that was part my point. They were irresponsible, their actions were incorrect, and now they discover that their incorrect actions have consequences.
How were their actions incorrect? The code was not included in the gameplay! You have to modify their code to get it to function. If I have ammonium hydroxide and chlorine bleach in my house is that an incorrect action? It is benign unless someone decides to play with the two.
Yes, but why didn't Rockstar remove it? That's what I'm trying to say: when you *know* something is bad, that it will get you in trouble, that it will cause problems for everyone, you shouldn't do it. Rockstar has set off a chain problems for the entire fucking industry just because they couldn't be bothered to comment out a few lines of code. No, it's not all their fault, not by a long shot. Yes, they are getting more flak than they deserve. But they did make a mistake, and they do need to be corrected on their mistake.
It's there, it was a bad idea, boo hoo. IMHO, Rockstar should say, "oops, our bad." ESRB should say, "Tut tut, don't do that again. Here, we must slap your wrist now." Slap. Then the issue should go away. Alas, everyone is too much into saving face or making political ground to let this happen.
Who cares why they didn't remove it? It wasn't activated. I would argue that they did exactly what you suggest. They knew it wasn't worth it, that it would cause problems for the game, so they *didn't* do it. That's why the code wasn't active. Rockstar didn't "set off a chain of problems". Bad parents, political zealots, and a bored hacker set off a chain of problems. They wrote the code. Fine, you're absolutely correct. But they didn't activate the code, either. It's not just waiting for someone to beat a mission or press a few buttons to start working. You have to patch the damn thing. So let's conveniently ignore the fact that the game shouldn't be in the hands of anyone under 17 anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that polygon sex is much less risque than the theft, murder, and score of other laws being bent and broken through the game.
I disagree. Rockstar didn't "hide a sex game" in GTA. It is inaccessible without modifying the game code. I own the PS2 version, and I can't get to this through game progress or a combination of button taps. I would need an AR Max.
They decided not to use it, so they locked the code up and left it in place. Irresponsible? I suppose. But what need is there to report that to the ESRB? It has to be hacked to be used. It is not a part of gameplay, or even a true easter egg. Just an idea that went sour.
But let's put the blame where it belongs: 1. Rockstar for putting something stupid like that in the game, and 2) self-seeking politicians who want to leave a "legacy" of "protecting the people from themselves". This isn't a "right/left" issue... this is a "freeedom/government regulation" issue.
You seem to have made a typo. Let me fix it for you:
But let's put the blame where it belongs:
parents who buy inappropriate games for their children because it's easier to give them what they want than it is to be a good parent.
There we go, all better. Easy mistake. The keys are like, right next to each other.
Kids play it and think its the real word, thus they go out and shoot people thinking they can get away with it like they did in the game.
I don't believe that for a second. I grew up playing games, so did my friends. We're not violent killers. We're not dumb enough to think that shooting someone is okay just because we did it in a game.
This whole epidemic is just lousy parenting. People needed someone to blame after Columbine, and it was so easy to claim that it wasn't *my* fault for being a lousy parent, it was those *games*. Politicians jumped on the bandwagon because it absolved parents from all responsibility. That makes the parents feel good, so the parents keep voting for the politicians. It it totally backwards.
The real problem is that people are having kids because they think they're supposed to. They don't understand what being a parent is or what kind of responsibility they have, and so you get kids who are out of control. So blame everyone but yourself. When it comes down to it, some people are just messed up in the head, too.
"For some things, there is no solution. For everything else, there's parenting."
Amazingly enough, I haven't had any major sickness at school yet (I'll be starting my last year this fall). The engineers tend to shut themselves in the labs and work all of the time, so we don't interact a lot with the rest of campus. An example of this would be last year when we all felt terrible and couldn't figure out why. Turns out we weren't getting enough sun...
What are the limits on plasma donation? Tutoring would be a viable option this year, actually. I worked my schedule to include slightly more free time than I am normally accustomed to. And I'm sure I could get some struggling kids through calculus. That is, if the work-study tutors don't beat me (damn unions!).
My university doesn't require health insurance (or, if they do, they've never called me on it). They do offer health insurance, but it still isn't really within my range.
Admittedly, I'm sure there are options for me. I just have never bothered to look into it. I'm in reasonably good health (aside from the two issues I mentioned earlier, one of which has been taken care of), don't have any known allergies or serious health problems, and am young and invincible. (Right...?) I sort of just shield myself under the mantra "you grew up poor, you never had insurance, you can't afford it now".
Donating plasma isn't a bad idea. I'm a regular blood donor, so I can't claim the "afraid of needles". I'm actually going to look into that, now that you mention it.
I'm a poor college student with no health insurance and not a lot of financial help. If I can find a solution to a problem that cuts the doctor out, it can be a wallet-saver.
The last two medical problems I have had, I easily identified with a little bit of web-searching. Neither of these problems had simple solutions (one required surgery, the other a prescription), so I didn't hit the jackpot or anything. But I saved both the doctor and myself time by showing up at the office and saying "I think this is my problem, I need you to verify it and recommend a surgeon/write a prescription."
With the vast amount of information at our disposal, it is easy to forget that *anyone* can put something on the internet. I am quite guilty of that myself. If something looks professional, it is easy to assume that it is true. I won't trust information from a website that looks poorly thrown together or is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. But if the person displays competence and confidence, I tend to be pretty trusting. And if I can trust these sources and save myself a trip (READ: $$) to a doctor or a prescription, I might as well.
I certainly don't think people should be foolish enough to trust any crazy remedy they come across on The Internets, though. People just need to display a little common sense.
I guess that's kind of my point. There is no point at which someone suddenly matures. It is a gradual process, and it doesn't have anything to do with a government imposed age restriction. But that doesn't mean we don't need those restrictions. I don't agree with some of them, but I still think they are useful.
The best idea is just to evaluate situations like this on a case by case basis. People are arguing that he either is responsible enough because he was 17, or he wasn't responsible enough because he was 17, or whatever. It isn't about age, really.
I have a hard time believing that you're all too old to remember what it was like to be this young...
Are you suggesting more privileges for these kids, too? Is there a magic switch at 21 (or 18 or whatever age limit country X is imposing) that makes drinking alcohol suddenly okay? Is there a switch at 18 that makes choosing to smoke okay? How about driving? Does the brain turn on the "safe driver" option at 16?
The problem is that not everyone is going to mature at the same rate. We need to have some sort of standard to use as a baseline. Some people are responsible enough to smoke or drink or drive before others. Some will be before the legal limit, some not until after. But it is a good place to start. Ambiguity in law is not, in my opinion, overly healthy. If a child is of a responsible enough mindframe to be tried as a result, then prove it in the courts and try him as an adult. Simple as that.
The above was just an "in general" statement in regard to your post. As far as this particular kid goes, I think he was intelligent enough to know what he was doing. I don't think he deserves to get lynched for it, though. Intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing. Do you remember what it was like to be a kid? He shouldn't get sent to a federal pound me in the ass prison, but he should have gotten worse.
Seriously, though. I just started trying to teach myself how to play guitar a few weeks ago, and now they've got this robot? I didn't think my playing was that bad...
Sorry, no, the game is designed to be played in groups. If you enjoy playing it solo you're fighting an uphill battle and the people who are playing the game as it is designed get the burden of your choice of play.
That's complete bullshit. My gaming experience has never been affected by anyone playing solo. Period. It certainly hasn't become a "burden."
It is a fact that solo players complain that the game is "too hard" and demand that special quests be developed just for them. That takes resources away from the developers which could be better spent developing content or fixing bugs for the people who are playing the game as it is designed.
I call bullshit. Several of my friends are solo players. I've never heard a peep from them about difficulty. They like the challenge of it. They don't demand any special features. If the game were intended to be played in groups, developers wouldn't waste their resources on solo players. I've read complaints about the way a game is designed before and seen the PR response of "tough, that's how you're supposed to play".
That explains a lot. Try playing a role playing game and doing it solo. Oh wait, then the only role you would be playing is yourself. Hmm, how pointless. Interaction with other people is why we're playing online.
Pointless? Not if I enjoy it. I'm sure there are people who think playing the role of someone else is pretty pointless. Welcome to the Real World, where people have opinions that differ from your own!
It's also convenient of you to ignore the other ways to interact with people online that don't involve grouping. But, I guess if you did that, you couldn't try to pass your opinion off as fact. This is just as stupid and pointless as trying to legislate values. Let people play how they want, it doesn't effect you.
1. Solo dudes are inevitably anti-social assholes.
What a healthy attitude to have! That sounds like "black skin inevitably makes you less valuable as a person" or "being a Jew makes you an animal".
2. Solo dudes are playing a game in a way that it wasn't intended to be played and almost always end up quitting in disgust and telling everyone it sucked.
They're playing the game, right? As someone else pointed out, there are more ways to interact in an environment than to be in a group. The auction houses, randomly helping others as you travel, and things of that nature. I think what you meant to say was that they are playing the game "in a way that I don't want them to." It. Is. A. Game. If they are entertained or amused, than they are using it for its rightful purpose. As far as "almost always" ending up "quitting in disgust" and telling "everyone it sucked"? That's a gross generalization stemming from your own negative views. Please do not try to pass it off as some sort of fact.
3. Solo dudes use up server and bandwidth resources that could be better used to serve players who play the game the way it was intended.
Refer to my other comment on how a game is "intended" to be played. I play WoW. I've seen plenty of people soloing. And, for all of them, I'm not seeing any shortage of players playing and enjoying the game. So I guess they can't be killing too much of the server and bandwidth resources...
If you're soloing in a MMORPG you're not only wasting your own time, you're making the game less enjoyable for others.
What?! If a person is enjoying soloing in a MMORPG, then they are not wasting their own time. They're playing a game, which means their objective is fun. Is it the most efficient use of their time? I guess not, if you consider efficiency to be the treadmill of level grinding.
And how exactly does soloing make the game less enjoyable for others? Who has less fun just because someone is running around alone?
"The rich environments and interesting quests appeal to me as a gamer. I am enjoying my time logged in. What do you think, Tim the Enchanter?"
"Well, I was enjoying the lush scenery and epic conquests over my enemies, but..."
"But what, Tim?"
"I saw this guy by himself while we were walking to Westfall. It just completely killed my gaming experience. There's no fun left in the world anymore, and it is all his fault. Also, I think he is directly responsible for my parents' divorce."
How often does that scenario play out? Seriously...
I wonder if methane can blow up in a place without oxygen.
Well, it can't combust.
The methane combustion reaction is: CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H20 + C02
Re:What would be the significance of this?
on
Lake spotted on Titan?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Liquids require pressure (see this) while solids and gasses don't, and pressure is a rare thing in space.
I guess I do not understand your meaning. If anything, a solid requires more pressure than a liquid. If you have a system (held isothermal) composed of a gas and you increase the pressure, what happens? It condenses to a liquid. Continue to increase the pressure, and then what? Your liquid freezes to a solid.
Given the context of space, I think I see your intention. That is, at extremely low temperatures a pressure change would most likely result in either sublimation or deposition. However, on a celestial body you can get greater temperatures than that of the vacuum of space.
"Right to create games"? I'll decide what games I buy and which not. I don't like it if some moral-ubermensh is going to tell what I can and can't buy. Those people don't have any right to decide any aspect of my life. So if you don't like violent games, you don't buy them. If you don't want your kids to play them, don't let them. Take responsibility yourself instead of trying to force your morals up on everyone. If you can't take that responsibility then don't have kids. Wouldn't hurt the gene pool.
I agree. My mother had no idea what she was getting into when she had me. She was 17 when I was born. As a result, I grew up with some pretty lousy parenting. She never questioned any game she bought me, she never monitored the music I listened to, and she never said I wasn't allowed to watch certain movies. I've been exposed to more than my fair share of violent movies and games, and I turned out just fine. (If that's what you would call being an engineer...)
But, what you have to realize, is that these people believe this crap. They really do think that games are going to make kids kill. What does that mean for you and I? It means the "stop forcing your morals on us" argument is not going to work. It is the same way the Constitution works. It provides us with rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. If a kid starts shooting people, it is having an impact on other people. So, in their twisted vision of reality, the advocates of censorship in video games are not really enforcing their morals. What they are trying to do is protect themselves. I can hardly blame them for that.
But that doesn't mean I won't blame them for being complete morons.
I was just trying to clarify the confusion between what was being said and what was being read.
Personally, I think people get away with far too much. Kids use the "video game" defense for their violent crimes, and people plead insanity to get reduced/easier sentences. People who exploit need to get burned by their actions. But, at the same time, developers need to get burned when they put out shoddy products.
Slashdot Mirror
A scientist can believe in God. But there is no scientific evidence in support of God. Any scientist mixing their findings and God is no true scientist.
And what is religion? Surely a tool that destroys lives? More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other cause. There have been no crusades to convert people to evolution.
Because of the Constitution. I am granted a right to believe in Zeus, Inanna, God, A Dismembered Hand, or nothing if I so choose. Science is an important part of any education, and it is already trying to teach too much in too little time. There is no need to waste my child's science classroom time on something that is not even remotely a science. If your faith is so strong, it shouldn't be so hard for you to ignore the "harmful" bits. But I don't want your oppresive faith cutting into my son's biology classes.
It was meant to. Your evidence has existed unchanged because anyone who challenges it is excommunicated or killed. It is unchanged because when people propose facts they are met with torture and blind faith. I wouldn't be so proud of that, as all it proves is that change is actively resisted. Science is intelligent enough to understand that it doesn't know everything. Scientists are mature enough to accept changes to their theories. What evidence do you want me to reach out and grab? Saying "I believe it so it has to be true" is certainly not evidence.
My tiny minority? You mean the minority that comprises the largest single sect (unless, of course, you count the Orthodox churches, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and various Christ-confessing religions as a single sect)? What a strange minority, that. I would claim that I have a better corner on facts than you do, yes. Because I base my "beliefs" on observable, verifiable evidence. You base yours on a book that has not been changed in two thousand years that you believe witho
The general premise of science is to explain. I am an engineer, and most of my friends are scientists and engineers. None of them hold science as an absolute truth, but rather a tool for understanding the world around them. I don't just apply blind faith to science. I accept an explanation only insofar as it is reasonably supported by facts.
I don't believe the Bible is the "literal word of God", so I don't think this argument is very strained for me to make. I can present evidence of fallacy if you would like:
Gen 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
ISA 14:21 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."
DEU 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
JOH 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
JOH 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
MAT 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."
Is that sufficient?
The problem here is that you call it scientific truth. Again, as I have pointed out, scientists tend not to blindly accept a theory. It is accepted until it has been disproved, at which point the theory is revised and updated to fit new data. Science is a work in progress. I think that gives it sufficient reason to be trusted more than a moldy book that people refuse to accept as fallible.
Carbon dating tends to have issues if fire is involved. Honestly, I'm not overly surprised that there would be an issue there. Do you have any examples more recent than 1975? Perhaps you have an example of the flaws in uranium dating, since that can actually extend past 50,000 years?
You don't stop testing theories. You accept them as "not false" until you have rea
It has only withstood scrutiny by people with blind faith. It is easy for you to reject any counter-argument, because your defense is simply "I believe it is true so it is". Belief is not fact. A literal reading of the Bible as a completely accurate historical reading puts the universe at, what, 6000 years old? I don't know the exact number, but it is less than 10K. We can use carbon dating to identify fossils older than that. We can use other forms of dating that put the Earth at about 4.6 billion years old. These are not opinions or beliefs, but facts.
Science constantly faces scrutiny. As a scientist, your peers will always be testing and debunking or improving on your theories and results. The Bible does not face that. The arguments people have presented to you so far have met with "it is wrong because I believe something different".
What harm is that, exactly? I watch porn, drink alcohol, play violent games, and watch violent movies. I'm also a productive and rational member of society.
It was completely irresponsible. They never intended to market GTA as an Adults Only game. Why was the content created in the first place? It had no business being in the code, ever.
The ESRB is meant to rate the *game*. If the code isn't used by the game, no harm. So you think the code shouldn't have been made? Fine, that's your opinion. My opinion on the subject is, I think it's funny. Part of the whole appeal to the series is how risque it is. It is a societal "no-no". And so the code was probably written as an effort to push some buttons. It was thought better of, and then it wasn't used. Big whoop. There is no point to jumping up and down ranting about how suddenly this has become AO material. The careless theft, murder, and destruction are just as bad. The game is already 17+. Polygon sex isn't going to damage a 17 year old more than the crusty porn mags hiding under their mattresses. Don't give me this "it never should have been written" crap. It is no more or less vile than any of the other code, except by an arbitrary (and stupid, IMO) societal stigma against sex.
The result is going to cost them millions of dollars, and some juvenile programmer is going to lose his job.
I fail to see how that relates. The only reason that result will occur is because politicians and parents are flipping out about something they don't understand. They seem to think that it is there, so it is part of the game. If parents took the time to understand the game they're handing their 12 year olds, they'd already know this game wasn't appropriate for them.
And that's the root of the whole problem. This is a puerile attack from both the political opportunists and the watch dog groups that have always had it in for this game. The subject is pointless. Who cares about polygon sex? There are hosts of weapons for me to brutally murder people with. Hosts of vehicles for me to steal and go crazy with. I can engage in prostitution and cop-killing. How is any of this less "adult only" content than sex? We have placed an arbitrary bias against sex in our (US) culture and use it to hide the rest of our problems.
Why is the ESRB involved? Because the game developer couldn't be trusted to clean their code. It doesn't matter that it's not accessible on the PS version or that they never intended for it to be accessible in any version. It didn't belong, and they got caught being sloppy.
As mentioned, the ESRB is designed to judge the *game*. This HotCoffee situation isn't even part of the game. Part of the code, yes, but not the game. What this boils down to is, you are placing the blame on the corporation for something a fan did. It is a mod. It opens up their code, yes, but it is a mod. Try blaming the person responsible.
I've seen the AVI, and personally I don't care about it one way or another. Except.... the ratings are rules, and they are there for a reason. Whether they intended for the content to be accessible or not, Rockstar created it. If they want to create that type of content, they should apply for AO ratings. Instead they bent the rules, said no one was ever supposed to see it, but never took responsibility for creating it in the first place.
You don't seem to understand the rating procedure. From the ESRB FAQ: "To get a game certified with an ESRB rating, publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining exactly what's in the game, and submit it to ESRB along with actual videotaped footage of the game, showing the most extreme content and an accurate representation of the context and product as a whole." They have to tell what is in the game, as well as show videotaped game footage. Well, the polygon sex isn't game content, and thus doesn't fall into either category. They followed the rules.
Meow, kitty.
By that reasoning, putting a winter coat in the closet for the summer is hiding it. More realistically, I don't want to use it but throwing it away seems a bit wasteful. Instead it gets put out of sight and out of mind. If you want to get dictionary anal on me, go for it. I really don't care. But we all know that's a bullshit definition. Hiding carries with it an implied malicious intent. Throw it around if you want, but I'm still not going to bite that line.
How were their actions incorrect? The code was not included in the gameplay! You have to modify their code to get it to function. If I have ammonium hydroxide and chlorine bleach in my house is that an incorrect action? It is benign unless someone decides to play with the two.
Who cares why they didn't remove it? It wasn't activated. I would argue that they did exactly what you suggest. They knew it wasn't worth it, that it would cause problems for the game, so they *didn't* do it. That's why the code wasn't active. Rockstar didn't "set off a chain of problems". Bad parents, political zealots, and a bored hacker set off a chain of problems. They wrote the code. Fine, you're absolutely correct. But they didn't activate the code, either. It's not just waiting for someone to beat a mission or press a few buttons to start working. You have to patch the damn thing. So let's conveniently ignore the fact that the game shouldn't be in the hands of anyone under 17 anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that polygon sex is much less risque than the theft, murder, and score of other laws being bent and broken through the game.
I disagree. Rockstar didn't "hide a sex game" in GTA. It is inaccessible without modifying the game code. I own the PS2 version, and I can't get to this through game progress or a combination of button taps. I would need an AR Max.
They decided not to use it, so they locked the code up and left it in place. Irresponsible? I suppose. But what need is there to report that to the ESRB? It has to be hacked to be used. It is not a part of gameplay, or even a true easter egg. Just an idea that went sour.
You seem to have made a typo. Let me fix it for you:
There we go, all better. Easy mistake. The keys are like, right next to each other.
I don't believe that for a second. I grew up playing games, so did my friends. We're not violent killers. We're not dumb enough to think that shooting someone is okay just because we did it in a game.
This whole epidemic is just lousy parenting. People needed someone to blame after Columbine, and it was so easy to claim that it wasn't *my* fault for being a lousy parent, it was those *games*. Politicians jumped on the bandwagon because it absolved parents from all responsibility. That makes the parents feel good, so the parents keep voting for the politicians. It it totally backwards.
The real problem is that people are having kids because they think they're supposed to. They don't understand what being a parent is or what kind of responsibility they have, and so you get kids who are out of control. So blame everyone but yourself. When it comes down to it, some people are just messed up in the head, too.
"For some things, there is no solution. For everything else, there's parenting."
Which campus did your cousin attend?
Amazingly enough, I haven't had any major sickness at school yet (I'll be starting my last year this fall). The engineers tend to shut themselves in the labs and work all of the time, so we don't interact a lot with the rest of campus. An example of this would be last year when we all felt terrible and couldn't figure out why. Turns out we weren't getting enough sun...
What are the limits on plasma donation? Tutoring would be a viable option this year, actually. I worked my schedule to include slightly more free time than I am normally accustomed to. And I'm sure I could get some struggling kids through calculus. That is, if the work-study tutors don't beat me (damn unions!).
My university doesn't require health insurance (or, if they do, they've never called me on it). They do offer health insurance, but it still isn't really within my range.
:)
Admittedly, I'm sure there are options for me. I just have never bothered to look into it. I'm in reasonably good health (aside from the two issues I mentioned earlier, one of which has been taken care of), don't have any known allergies or serious health problems, and am young and invincible. (Right...?) I sort of just shield myself under the mantra "you grew up poor, you never had insurance, you can't afford it now".
Donating plasma isn't a bad idea. I'm a regular blood donor, so I can't claim the "afraid of needles". I'm actually going to look into that, now that you mention it.
I'm studying chemical engineering.
I didn't RTFA, but...
I'm a poor college student with no health insurance and not a lot of financial help. If I can find a solution to a problem that cuts the doctor out, it can be a wallet-saver.
The last two medical problems I have had, I easily identified with a little bit of web-searching. Neither of these problems had simple solutions (one required surgery, the other a prescription), so I didn't hit the jackpot or anything. But I saved both the doctor and myself time by showing up at the office and saying "I think this is my problem, I need you to verify it and recommend a surgeon/write a prescription."
With the vast amount of information at our disposal, it is easy to forget that *anyone* can put something on the internet. I am quite guilty of that myself. If something looks professional, it is easy to assume that it is true. I won't trust information from a website that looks poorly thrown together or is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. But if the person displays competence and confidence, I tend to be pretty trusting. And if I can trust these sources and save myself a trip (READ: $$) to a doctor or a prescription, I might as well.
I certainly don't think people should be foolish enough to trust any crazy remedy they come across on The Internets, though. People just need to display a little common sense.
Back in my day, we didn't have sticks to shake at books! We had to shake our fists and use our imaginations!
The best idea is just to evaluate situations like this on a case by case basis. People are arguing that he either is responsible enough because he was 17, or he wasn't responsible enough because he was 17, or whatever. It isn't about age, really.
I have a hard time believing that you're all too old to remember what it was like to be this young...
The problem is that not everyone is going to mature at the same rate. We need to have some sort of standard to use as a baseline. Some people are responsible enough to smoke or drink or drive before others. Some will be before the legal limit, some not until after. But it is a good place to start. Ambiguity in law is not, in my opinion, overly healthy. If a child is of a responsible enough mindframe to be tried as a result, then prove it in the courts and try him as an adult. Simple as that.
The above was just an "in general" statement in regard to your post. As far as this particular kid goes, I think he was intelligent enough to know what he was doing. I don't think he deserves to get lynched for it, though. Intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing. Do you remember what it was like to be a kid? He shouldn't get sent to a federal pound me in the ass prison, but he should have gotten worse.
Seriously, though. I just started trying to teach myself how to play guitar a few weeks ago, and now they've got this robot? I didn't think my playing was that bad...
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
That's complete bullshit. My gaming experience has never been affected by anyone playing solo. Period. It certainly hasn't become a "burden."
It is a fact that solo players complain that the game is "too hard" and demand that special quests be developed just for them. That takes resources away from the developers which could be better spent developing content or fixing bugs for the people who are playing the game as it is designed.
I call bullshit. Several of my friends are solo players. I've never heard a peep from them about difficulty. They like the challenge of it. They don't demand any special features. If the game were intended to be played in groups, developers wouldn't waste their resources on solo players. I've read complaints about the way a game is designed before and seen the PR response of "tough, that's how you're supposed to play".
That explains a lot. Try playing a role playing game and doing it solo. Oh wait, then the only role you would be playing is yourself. Hmm, how pointless. Interaction with other people is why we're playing online.
Pointless? Not if I enjoy it. I'm sure there are people who think playing the role of someone else is pretty pointless. Welcome to the Real World, where people have opinions that differ from your own!
It's also convenient of you to ignore the other ways to interact with people online that don't involve grouping. But, I guess if you did that, you couldn't try to pass your opinion off as fact. This is just as stupid and pointless as trying to legislate values. Let people play how they want, it doesn't effect you.
What a healthy attitude to have! That sounds like "black skin inevitably makes you less valuable as a person" or "being a Jew makes you an animal".
They're playing the game, right? As someone else pointed out, there are more ways to interact in an environment than to be in a group. The auction houses, randomly helping others as you travel, and things of that nature. I think what you meant to say was that they are playing the game "in a way that I don't want them to." It. Is. A. Game. If they are entertained or amused, than they are using it for its rightful purpose. As far as "almost always" ending up "quitting in disgust" and telling "everyone it sucked"? That's a gross generalization stemming from your own negative views. Please do not try to pass it off as some sort of fact.
Refer to my other comment on how a game is "intended" to be played. I play WoW. I've seen plenty of people soloing. And, for all of them, I'm not seeing any shortage of players playing and enjoying the game. So I guess they can't be killing too much of the server and bandwidth resources...
What?! If a person is enjoying soloing in a MMORPG, then they are not wasting their own time. They're playing a game, which means their objective is fun. Is it the most efficient use of their time? I guess not, if you consider efficiency to be the treadmill of level grinding.
And how exactly does soloing make the game less enjoyable for others? Who has less fun just because someone is running around alone?
"The rich environments and interesting quests appeal to me as a gamer. I am enjoying my time logged in. What do you think, Tim the Enchanter?"
"Well, I was enjoying the lush scenery and epic conquests over my enemies, but..."
"But what, Tim?"
"I saw this guy by himself while we were walking to Westfall. It just completely killed my gaming experience. There's no fun left in the world anymore, and it is all his fault. Also, I think he is directly responsible for my parents' divorce."
How often does that scenario play out? Seriously...
Well, it can't combust.
The methane combustion reaction is: CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H20 + C02
I guess I do not understand your meaning. If anything, a solid requires more pressure than a liquid. If you have a system (held isothermal) composed of a gas and you increase the pressure, what happens? It condenses to a liquid. Continue to increase the pressure, and then what? Your liquid freezes to a solid.
Given the context of space, I think I see your intention. That is, at extremely low temperatures a pressure change would most likely result in either sublimation or deposition. However, on a celestial body you can get greater temperatures than that of the vacuum of space.
I agree. My mother had no idea what she was getting into when she had me. She was 17 when I was born. As a result, I grew up with some pretty lousy parenting. She never questioned any game she bought me, she never monitored the music I listened to, and she never said I wasn't allowed to watch certain movies. I've been exposed to more than my fair share of violent movies and games, and I turned out just fine. (If that's what you would call being an engineer...)
But, what you have to realize, is that these people believe this crap. They really do think that games are going to make kids kill. What does that mean for you and I? It means the "stop forcing your morals on us" argument is not going to work. It is the same way the Constitution works. It provides us with rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. If a kid starts shooting people, it is having an impact on other people. So, in their twisted vision of reality, the advocates of censorship in video games are not really enforcing their morals. What they are trying to do is protect themselves. I can hardly blame them for that.
But that doesn't mean I won't blame them for being complete morons.
I was just trying to clarify the confusion between what was being said and what was being read.
Personally, I think people get away with far too much. Kids use the "video game" defense for their violent crimes, and people plead insanity to get reduced/easier sentences. People who exploit need to get burned by their actions. But, at the same time, developers need to get burned when they put out shoddy products.