I have to ask, does the act of pointing out stupidity and its damage to society count as christian bashing? Because I would like to point out that this christian group is acting stupid and damaging society.
You heard it here, folks: the military doesn't tolerate ethics. Their protocols override ethics. After all, they're the good guys and what they do is right because they're doing it.
Ughh, as the years go on, I'm more convinced the military isn't responsible enough to have national secrets in the first place.
Yeah, I somehow missed your sarcasm tag; my bad. I guess if it's any consolation, anyone that didn't initially get the joke has now had it plainly spelled out for them.
Instead of just posting a nonconstructive character attack and then running away, why not show him where his mockery was lacking? Come on man, you got me psyched up for some Hitchens-quality stinging ridicule; what are you bringing to the table on this one?
It's not *that* difficult to learn right-handedness, at least for video games.
I agree, it's not hard to learn to get a basic level of coordination down. It's also hardly frustrating when it's something you're doing voluntarily as a trick.
But it is incredibly difficult to master. And it stops being fun when time after time, you're put in a situation where your learning curve for a given activity is much higher because the native dexterity just isn't there in the wrongly assumed hand.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is all the yelling the lefties are doing in the comments of this post isn't actually about this game and this game only. The actual fuel to the aggravation you're seeing is from all the other times they've been put in a situation that says "you are not worth considering as a use-case scenario".
How many households have real guns?
Now, how many households have a computer or gaming console?
Yeah, I thought so. The target is where it should be.
Those questions don't paint a picture nearly as impressive as you think it does. According to http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp 40-45% of households have a gun. So even if we assume just about everyone has computer or game console, every other person also has a gun in their home. Half is hardly a fringe situation.
Besides, asking for simple parental involvement (which any good parent would have NO issues doing so)[...]
I smell a no true scottsman in that statement. You can't know what you put in the parenthetical simply because everyone's interpretation of good parent is different.
[...]is hardly stepping on any Constitutional Rights, which do come into play when you start talking about real guns.
It's not that hard to make a 1st amendment issue out of this. Why does the medium matter; why not books? After all, what good parent wouldn't shield their child from violence of every medium. Could you imagine how horrible a parent would have to be, not only to not be concerned, but encouraging their child to read about mass genocide by drowning and billing it as a good thing? (Gilgamesh and some derivative hack work comes to mind... on an unrelated topic, can I mod myself flamebait?:D )
When we model the brain successfully, we will probably not do it by simulating proteins and their environment, we will simply simulate the input/output, i.e. on a higher level than what gets PZ, who wants to plug proteins into computers, so aroused.
But there is no higher level with the brain. There is no design. The closest thing to that are partially-functional processes that cause the organism to survive long enough to contribute surviving off-spring to the gene pool. Anything more than that is undue anthropomorphization. Sure, some are common amonst the population, but odds are the specifics of their equivalent state diagrams won't be identical. Your only option is the protein level.
To simplify it so a computer science ignorant biologist with a tendency to inane rants can possibly get it, you don't need to simulate electrons in a semi-conductive material at specific temperatures in order to build a complete working emulator for an old computer.
Imagine a system had no specification. Additionally, given an intput, each one behaved differently from the other and we didn't already know how that happens. You sure you don't want to do those lower level simulations?
Emulators are designed from specifications. The brain has no specification. We have to simulate it at the protein level until we understand how these functions develop because they do not behave the same, or at all, for everyone.
What an ass. Not enough evidence? Maybe if your source of information on evolutionary biology are the wonder twins Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.
150 years worth of evidence-based research being independently verified by thousands of scientists under a level of scrutiny well beyond any other topic because it doesn't play nicely with bronze-age myths, and somehow it's still around. Probably because it's become an integral part of modern medicine. We as a species can now track how viruses, bacteria, and other microbe nasties change, and prepare for upcoming threats thanks to our understanding of evolutionary biology. That's the key difference between science and making shit up: predictable models.
You know what happened when superstitious hear-say was the basis of medicine? A third of Europe died because the people were told the best way to fight disease was to pray (aka pretending to telepathically talk to someone), and Africa ended up with currently 22 something million people with AIDS because they were told using a condom makes a ferric-intolerant sky Q sad.
If we're going to play that game, then my freedom has been perpetually hemorrhaging from paying into a military whose actions, behavior, and general outlook on how to handle world events I fundamentally disagree with.
Here's how people arrived at that conclusion while being in their right mind:
OP: Premise given, concluding it's safe.
You: List of examples attempting to discount premise.
Re OP: Debunks some examples, questions effective use the remaining ones. Notes anti-science behavior.
Re You: Discounts claiming a position.
Me: Attempts to explain the Re OP's assumption. Requests clarification.
I think I might have figured out what's going on here. The OP gave an actionable premise and conclusion. Therefore, we took your retort also to be actionable. Since a precise action was not given, it was assumed that your platform is "don't follow the OP's advice."
I guess the only thing to ask at this point is, if you had no intention in either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's concluded actions, what were we suppose to take away from your initial post?
Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?
Debunking aside, I think what he's getting at is your post, as best I could tell, implied to avoid all things currently deemed safe that will be found to be dangerous in the future. There is no scientific way to pin-point only those things, so only by avoiding everything can this be accomplished.
If the above was not what you intended to carry across, by all means, clarify your proposal.
Because the phrase "suspected child-sex crime" is equivalent to hitting the win button in a US government building; the merits don't actually need to make sense, as lot as someone declares it. Hell, it was probably the back-up line if "suspected weapons of mass destruction" didn't work.
The two in jail are probably pissed as hell that they were found. However, the numbers still support the above. Anonymous is far larger than two people, and the rest were not caught.
It's like swatting at bees; sure they're easy to take down, but there's a lot of them and (to anthropomorphize) they are all right to assume that they probably won't be the one to get hit.
In my desktop, I have an nvidia GTX 285, which replaced an 8600GT, which replaced a fried 7900GT, which replaced a 5900, which replaced a 5200, which replaced a Ti 300, which replaced a 256. But I cannot agree with your sentiments.
Sure your list of wants in a game are a nice addition, but when they supercede or outright replace the definition of fun, then something somewhere has gone wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to ask, does the act of pointing out stupidity and its damage to society count as christian bashing? Because I would like to point out that this christian group is acting stupid and damaging society.
Hey, credit where credit's due: They never would have achieved those temps without Crytek. :D
Found it readily readable/downloadable here.
You heard it here, folks: the military doesn't tolerate ethics. Their protocols override ethics. After all, they're the good guys and what they do is right because they're doing it.
Ughh, as the years go on, I'm more convinced the military isn't responsible enough to have national secrets in the first place.
Yeah, I somehow missed your sarcasm tag; my bad. I guess if it's any consolation, anyone that didn't initially get the joke has now had it plainly spelled out for them.
Instead of just posting a nonconstructive character attack and then running away, why not show him where his mockery was lacking? Come on man, you got me psyched up for some Hitchens-quality stinging ridicule; what are you bringing to the table on this one?
It's not *that* difficult to learn right-handedness, at least for video games.
I agree, it's not hard to learn to get a basic level of coordination down. It's also hardly frustrating when it's something you're doing voluntarily as a trick.
But it is incredibly difficult to master. And it stops being fun when time after time, you're put in a situation where your learning curve for a given activity is much higher because the native dexterity just isn't there in the wrongly assumed hand.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is all the yelling the lefties are doing in the comments of this post isn't actually about this game and this game only. The actual fuel to the aggravation you're seeing is from all the other times they've been put in a situation that says "you are not worth considering as a use-case scenario".
Link departs on his quest with the magical sword in his left hand and the magical shield in his right.
How many households have real guns? Now, how many households have a computer or gaming console? Yeah, I thought so. The target is where it should be.
Those questions don't paint a picture nearly as impressive as you think it does. According to http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp 40-45% of households have a gun. So even if we assume just about everyone has computer or game console, every other person also has a gun in their home. Half is hardly a fringe situation.
Besides, asking for simple parental involvement (which any good parent would have NO issues doing so)[...]
I smell a no true scottsman in that statement. You can't know what you put in the parenthetical simply because everyone's interpretation of good parent is different.
[...]is hardly stepping on any Constitutional Rights, which do come into play when you start talking about real guns.
It's not that hard to make a 1st amendment issue out of this. Why does the medium matter; why not books? After all, what good parent wouldn't shield their child from violence of every medium. Could you imagine how horrible a parent would have to be, not only to not be concerned, but encouraging their child to read about mass genocide by drowning and billing it as a good thing? (Gilgamesh and some derivative hack work comes to mind... on an unrelated topic, can I mod myself flamebait? :D )
Damn; apparently making a joke that's derived from a satirical post isn't allowed on slashdot.
Lesson learned.
I buy Apple
...
I hate branding
*Head Explodes*
When we model the brain successfully, we will probably not do it by simulating proteins and their environment, we will simply simulate the input/output, i.e. on a higher level than what gets PZ, who wants to plug proteins into computers, so aroused.
But there is no higher level with the brain. There is no design. The closest thing to that are partially-functional processes that cause the organism to survive long enough to contribute surviving off-spring to the gene pool. Anything more than that is undue anthropomorphization. Sure, some are common amonst the population, but odds are the specifics of their equivalent state diagrams won't be identical. Your only option is the protein level.
To simplify it so a computer science ignorant biologist with a tendency to inane rants can possibly get it, you don't need to simulate electrons in a semi-conductive material at specific temperatures in order to build a complete working emulator for an old computer.
Imagine a system had no specification. Additionally, given an intput, each one behaved differently from the other and we didn't already know how that happens. You sure you don't want to do those lower level simulations?
Emulators are designed from specifications. The brain has no specification. We have to simulate it at the protein level until we understand how these functions develop because they do not behave the same, or at all, for everyone.
Regardless, I think it's safe to say that the concensus here is we're calling rule 34 on international draconian copyright laws.
Well if it isn't, they should really post a redacta.
Yeah, the unwarranted nerd superiority complex is running a bit higher than usual in this story's comments. I see no other way around this:
:D
* breaks out megaphone *
Alright guys, looks like we all have to hug it out and start over!
What an ass. Not enough evidence? Maybe if your source of information on evolutionary biology are the wonder twins Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.
150 years worth of evidence-based research being independently verified by thousands of scientists under a level of scrutiny well beyond any other topic because it doesn't play nicely with bronze-age myths, and somehow it's still around. Probably because it's become an integral part of modern medicine. We as a species can now track how viruses, bacteria, and other microbe nasties change, and prepare for upcoming threats thanks to our understanding of evolutionary biology. That's the key difference between science and making shit up: predictable models.
You know what happened when superstitious hear-say was the basis of medicine? A third of Europe died because the people were told the best way to fight disease was to pray (aka pretending to telepathically talk to someone), and Africa ended up with currently 22 something million people with AIDS because they were told using a condom makes a ferric-intolerant sky Q sad.
As the Robot Devil once said, "That was pretty brutal, even by my standards."
...just wow.
Because if they did that, then I'd be possible to back-track to an older firmware, which is exactly what they try to avoid.
If we're going to play that game, then my freedom has been perpetually hemorrhaging from paying into a military whose actions, behavior, and general outlook on how to handle world events I fundamentally disagree with.
Here's how people arrived at that conclusion while being in their right mind:
OP: Premise given, concluding it's safe.
You: List of examples attempting to discount premise.
Re OP: Debunks some examples, questions effective use the remaining ones. Notes anti-science behavior.
Re You: Discounts claiming a position.
Me: Attempts to explain the Re OP's assumption. Requests clarification.
I think I might have figured out what's going on here. The OP gave an actionable premise and conclusion. Therefore, we took your retort also to be actionable. Since a precise action was not given, it was assumed that your platform is "don't follow the OP's advice."
I guess the only thing to ask at this point is, if you had no intention in either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's concluded actions, what were we suppose to take away from your initial post?
Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?
Debunking aside, I think what he's getting at is your post, as best I could tell, implied to avoid all things currently deemed safe that will be found to be dangerous in the future. There is no scientific way to pin-point only those things, so only by avoiding everything can this be accomplished.
If the above was not what you intended to carry across, by all means, clarify your proposal.
Because the phrase "suspected child-sex crime" is equivalent to hitting the win button in a US government building; the merits don't actually need to make sense, as lot as someone declares it. Hell, it was probably the back-up line if "suspected weapons of mass destruction" didn't work.
Because the linux video APIs make them cry.
The two in jail are probably pissed as hell that they were found. However, the numbers still support the above. Anonymous is far larger than two people, and the rest were not caught.
It's like swatting at bees; sure they're easy to take down, but there's a lot of them and (to anthropomorphize) they are all right to assume that they probably won't be the one to get hit.
In my desktop, I have an nvidia GTX 285, which replaced an 8600GT, which replaced a fried 7900GT, which replaced a 5900, which replaced a 5200, which replaced a Ti 300, which replaced a 256. But I cannot agree with your sentiments.
Sure your list of wants in a game are a nice addition, but when they supercede or outright replace the definition of fun, then something somewhere has gone wrong.