I have to use a language that someone else created in order to talk to you. So the process by which something is created is always incremental. It always involves using stuff that other people have made.
I speak therefore everything is always incremental? Ok Descartes...
Justify theft? Tuition prices at Universities are high enough as it is... I don't need a thief tax added on. Thanks though. I don't even download music... The radio and whatever music happens to randomly be playing in my house (4 Mitbewohners... Housemates?) is more than good enough for me. Access to a service I would literally never use in exchange for my money doesn't seem like a great deal.
I honestly don't even want to have a discussion with you about how the law and morality differ. I don't want to challenge you to justify your claims with something resembling an argument... much less premises. Your "use the system" rhetoric just pisses me off. Yeah, I'm sure that if you "play the game" you'll end up on top. Right. That's what college students are told their entire fucking lives. Then when we get done with the obstacle course we see the barren wasteland that awaits us... that people like you, who built "the system" and/or support "the system," left for us. Sorry, but I don't want that... I wont buy into it and I sure as hell am going to do whatever I can to avoid it.
premise 1 isn't a fact. A chemical reaction may be but a single observable component of a thought. Something has to initialize the first reaction that starts the "chain" or "thought process" there can be no infinite regress.
I don't see how newton's 2nd law fits into free will at all...... other than through a gross misinterpretation of it. So, unfortunately for your argument
1. Point of contention 2. Random nonsense Therefore: Conclusion of whatever I want...... doesn't hold. If premise 1 holds your argument is sound (has all true premises) but is not valid (conclusion does not follow from the premises). Back to the drawing board.
If you think that creationism and evolution both require faith then you either don't know what faith is or don't know what evolution is. Likely both.
Regarding your amazingly vague statement about wrong ideas... Good luck with that. I do like my bigotry with a side of condescension.
and nobody cares about your whiny prediction of a -1 mod. Your post could reasonably be construed as a troll with such gems as "no empirical proof that carbon dating is even accurate" (just because you don't understand radioactive decay doesn't mean that scientists don't) and of course your classic case of completely-hypocritical-skepticism with a dash of misunderstanding-of-science-as-a-whole, "There's nothing factual, based solely on empirical evidence in any of these fields that conclusively proves..." I mean... if you want to jump onto THAT particular bandwagon then here's an interesting observation... I don't think anybody has ever disproved Descartes' Deceiver Hypothesis (first 4 paragraphs of his 3rd meditation, not to be confused with the deceiver from the 1st mediation and no, not even Descartes disproved it, the ninny) so there is nothing based-solely-on-empirical-evidence that proves you exist (indeed, empirical evidence would be useless in such a pursuit).
Oops... I forget... people are only irrationally skeptical of things they disagree with (or if they're foundationalists... but whatever).
I do believe Malaysia was tied with Russia and China for worst (each getting a 1.3 total score)... Must be some type of industrialized/sweat shop Zoolanderian Dystopia.
I'm amazed it took so long for an article to appear on the web... But then again... It's not like I could google for it...
As a side note, i've also been getting intermittent connection reset errors when accessing facebook.com although they usually go away after a few refreshes unlike the google errors.
This isn't hypocritical... if people aren't allowed to modify their beliefs based upon acquiring new information without being called a hypocrite then everybody on the planet is, indeed, a hypocrite.
I refuse to believe that Gamestop would have any sort of information or even special insight into the shortage of anything. They sell things that people hand them... they hype what people tell them to. This is a prime example of what happens when they attempt to think for themselves. Perhaps this is a version of the Dilbert Principle in that every layer of management is dumber than the one below it. I'd rather trust the clerk at the gamestop store... and i'm not about to do that either.
Oh, and the thing about the title shortage is not necessarily a shortage of titles but a shortage of playable titles. There are plenty of games that got beat up in reviews and just aren't fun to play. But I'd still say that on average the quality of Wii games is far better than that of Xbox 360, PS2, or Xbox (haven't played PS3)
Did anybody else read the title as saying "Network Interregators" ? Thoughts went immediately to the RIAA shouting at networks for a couple hours and claiming evidence of piracy...
I fail to see the justification for restriction of fair use rights... regardless of disclaimers. And i'm not entirely certain that all flavors of DRM let you rip music to your computer (without violating the DMCA).
I can't believe the line of reasoning the article takes... it does not follow that if morality grew out of evolutionary behavior that biologists should get to say what is right and wrong. There are systems of morality that exist which have nothing to do with evolution. Many flavors of consequentialism and deontology don't seem to share all that much with the biological evolution approach.
That we are capable of thinking morally is undoubtedly a trait of our biological evolution. That we have moral thoughts is not. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago these two concepts were more closely related but I sincerely doubt this still holds today.
how could you ever know that you were the ONLY person in the world that knew something? You wouldn't even know it was a secret... you'd probably ruin it for everybody else (i mean nobody else...) or do i?
Ahh yes. Now I remember that the article was about un-attentional(non-attentional?) blindness. Still I think that this could be useful for advertisers if it can be proven that the differences would register in the persons subconscious.
Give me $10000 a month, every month for the next 100 years. Your business will improve every year. If it doesn't, I'll just blame uncontrollable global market forces and claim your losses would have been more significant if not for me. It's bloody brilliant.
You are probably right. You seem to be much more familiar with the experiment than i am. However, it would be easy to see how an advertisement might also use this methodology to focus the viewers attention to a specific task or object while displaying other images.
My psych 111 class went over things like this... the brain processes a lot of things that aren't consciously picked up upon especially when it comes to vision.
Experiments have been done that prove that people really don't notice what is right in front of their faces. A bunch of people were shown a video of 2 people tossing a basketball back and forth for probably 10 minutes (i dont recall exactly) but then a man in a gorilla suit walks by behind the people tossing the basketball, then everything proceeds as normal again. When asked later if the viewers remembered the gorilla walking by a large % responded no (again, i can't remember specifically).
Psychoanalysis is a method of therapy related to psychotherapy. This is basically just looking at video games and saying "Freud would probably have said X about..."
Lacan was a student of Freud. IIRC my psych prof. dismissed Lacan because he doesn't like to provide integral scientific data to support his conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to use a language that someone else created in order to talk to you. So the process by which something is created is always incremental. It always involves using stuff that other people have made.
I speak therefore everything is always incremental? Ok Descartes...
Justify theft? Tuition prices at Universities are high enough as it is... I don't need a thief tax added on. Thanks though. I don't even download music... The radio and whatever music happens to randomly be playing in my house (4 Mitbewohners... Housemates?) is more than good enough for me. Access to a service I would literally never use in exchange for my money doesn't seem like a great deal. I honestly don't even want to have a discussion with you about how the law and morality differ. I don't want to challenge you to justify your claims with something resembling an argument... much less premises. Your "use the system" rhetoric just pisses me off. Yeah, I'm sure that if you "play the game" you'll end up on top. Right. That's what college students are told their entire fucking lives. Then when we get done with the obstacle course we see the barren wasteland that awaits us... that people like you, who built "the system" and/or support "the system," left for us. Sorry, but I don't want that... I wont buy into it and I sure as hell am going to do whatever I can to avoid it.
Surely you've run out of money by now...
premise 1 isn't a fact. A chemical reaction may be but a single observable component of a thought. Something has to initialize the first reaction that starts the "chain" or "thought process" there can be no infinite regress.
... doesn't hold. If premise 1 holds your argument is sound (has all true premises) but is not valid (conclusion does not follow from the premises). Back to the drawing board.
I don't see how newton's 2nd law fits into free will at all...... other than through a gross misinterpretation of it. So, unfortunately for your argument
1. Point of contention
2. Random nonsense
Therefore: Conclusion of whatever I want...
If you think that creationism and evolution both require faith then you either don't know what faith is or don't know what evolution is. Likely both.
Regarding your amazingly vague statement about wrong ideas... Good luck with that. I do like my bigotry with a side of condescension.
and nobody cares about your whiny prediction of a -1 mod. Your post could reasonably be construed as a troll with such gems as "no empirical proof that carbon dating is even accurate" (just because you don't understand radioactive decay doesn't mean that scientists don't) and of course your classic case of completely-hypocritical-skepticism with a dash of misunderstanding-of-science-as-a-whole, "There's nothing factual, based solely on empirical evidence in any of these fields that conclusively proves..." I mean... if you want to jump onto THAT particular bandwagon then here's an interesting observation... I don't think anybody has ever disproved Descartes' Deceiver Hypothesis (first 4 paragraphs of his 3rd meditation, not to be confused with the deceiver from the 1st mediation and no, not even Descartes disproved it, the ninny) so there is nothing based-solely-on-empirical-evidence that proves you exist (indeed, empirical evidence would be useless in such a pursuit).
Oops... I forget... people are only irrationally skeptical of things they disagree with (or if they're foundationalists... but whatever).
I do believe Malaysia was tied with Russia and China for worst (each getting a 1.3 total score) ... Must be some type of industrialized/sweat shop Zoolanderian Dystopia.
Or maybe you just made a groundless claim?
from america you have to go UP the tubes to get to canada (unless you live in eastern michigan... whatever)
doesn't azureus support a type of encryption to aid in getting around traffic shaping?
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Avoid_traffic_shaping
Perhaps if they quit nuking our connections we'd stop trying to stop them from nuking our connections.
One third of IT employees were fired this week... which third? well... any third will do.
I'm amazed it took so long for an article to appear on the web... But then again... It's not like I could google for it... As a side note, i've also been getting intermittent connection reset errors when accessing facebook.com although they usually go away after a few refreshes unlike the google errors.
This isn't hypocritical... if people aren't allowed to modify their beliefs based upon acquiring new information without being called a hypocrite then everybody on the planet is, indeed, a hypocrite.
I second that motion.
I refuse to believe that Gamestop would have any sort of information or even special insight into the shortage of anything. They sell things that people hand them... they hype what people tell them to. This is a prime example of what happens when they attempt to think for themselves. Perhaps this is a version of the Dilbert Principle in that every layer of management is dumber than the one below it. I'd rather trust the clerk at the gamestop store... and i'm not about to do that either.
Oh, and the thing about the title shortage is not necessarily a shortage of titles but a shortage of playable titles. There are plenty of games that got beat up in reviews and just aren't fun to play. But I'd still say that on average the quality of Wii games is far better than that of Xbox 360, PS2, or Xbox (haven't played PS3)
Did anybody else read the title as saying "Network Interregators" ? Thoughts went immediately to the RIAA shouting at networks for a couple hours and claiming evidence of piracy...
I fail to see the justification for restriction of fair use rights... regardless of disclaimers. And i'm not entirely certain that all flavors of DRM let you rip music to your computer (without violating the DMCA).
I can't believe the line of reasoning the article takes... it does not follow that if morality grew out of evolutionary behavior that biologists should get to say what is right and wrong. There are systems of morality that exist which have nothing to do with evolution. Many flavors of consequentialism and deontology don't seem to share all that much with the biological evolution approach.
That we are capable of thinking morally is undoubtedly a trait of our biological evolution. That we have moral thoughts is not. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago these two concepts were more closely related but I sincerely doubt this still holds today.
how could you ever know that you were the ONLY person in the world that knew something? You wouldn't even know it was a secret... you'd probably ruin it for everybody else (i mean nobody else...) or do i?
http://www.lessig.org/ he's a cool guy. Doesn't like the state of copyright today. More into the dissemination of information.
Ahh yes. Now I remember that the article was about un-attentional(non-attentional?) blindness. Still I think that this could be useful for advertisers if it can be proven that the differences would register in the persons subconscious.
Give me $10000 a month, every month for the next 100 years. Your business will improve every year. If it doesn't, I'll just blame uncontrollable global market forces and claim your losses would have been more significant if not for me. It's bloody brilliant.
You are probably right. You seem to be much more familiar with the experiment than i am. However, it would be easy to see how an advertisement might also use this methodology to focus the viewers attention to a specific task or object while displaying other images.
My psych 111 class went over things like this... the brain processes a lot of things that aren't consciously picked up upon especially when it comes to vision. Experiments have been done that prove that people really don't notice what is right in front of their faces. A bunch of people were shown a video of 2 people tossing a basketball back and forth for probably 10 minutes (i dont recall exactly) but then a man in a gorilla suit walks by behind the people tossing the basketball, then everything proceeds as normal again. When asked later if the viewers remembered the gorilla walking by a large % responded no (again, i can't remember specifically).
Agreed.
Psychoanalysis is a method of therapy related to psychotherapy. This is basically just looking at video games and saying "Freud would probably have said X about ..."
Lacan was a student of Freud. IIRC my psych prof. dismissed Lacan because he doesn't like to provide integral scientific data to support his conclusions.
Anyways... yeah... pretty pointless.
I was wondering what they had against football, beer and portable grills...