I bought my PS3 just for the Other OS feature. My hacked XBox got bricked and my HTPC broke, so I wanted a legit way of bringing MythTV to my TV without having to build a new HTPC.
I think that if everyone set aside their fanboyisms, they will see that the Wii is the game console of the decade, not the 360. No other console has expanded the audience of gamers like the Wii has. Previous generation of gamers have Wiis and now so do normal people. I'd use to come to work and say, I got the new Mario Kart and people would think, "Who cares?" Now I hear from others that they recently purchased the new Mario Kart and its fun. Wii brought games to the mainstream.
I must agree. My 2 year old daughter loves to play games like Nintendogs and Hello Kitty because it is an intuitive interface. She also loves Punchout!!! for the Wii. But when it comes to games that require buttons (e.g. New Super Mario Bros.) she isn't able to grasp how to play.
I don't seem to have trouble with myth these days. I use my Sony PlayStation 3 as a frontend via upnp. I haven't tried the latest yet, but if it's not there already, I'm going to try to improve the upnp support so that I can do more such as deleting recordings straight from the PS3.
Sonic Rush was alright, but it's still not what I want in a Sonic game. I guess I'm still looking for a Sonic 4. A Sonic game that has one button control and allows you to explore it in different ways with different characters. Perhaps even some online/offline coop. I don't mind the extra characters, but I think it takes away from what Sonic is when you have to remember to do a bazillion tricks to be able to pull off a modified spindash.
If what you're wanting to do is homebrew, pick up a Datel "Games 'n Music" card at your local Wal-Mart for $20. It does homebrew, emulation, etc... It does not play commercial games, though.
Well as mentioned previously, the flood wasn't on Mars. In fact, it wouldn't really matter what day life on Mars was created. In fact, if we found life on Mars that was significantly similar to ours (DNA based, etc...), then we can draw many conclusions including contamination from humans or the same designer created life on both planets.
Now whether or not you believe in the Judeo-Christian version of history or not, there are many different cultures who talk of a great flood. It may be plausible that one in fact happened.
What's there to acknowledge? I think MSDN is one of the best sources of documentation EVER. Trust me. Every program in Delphi? Way more difficult than going to MSDN to learn how to interface with SharePoint. They even have documentation on how to interface with things that they suggest not interfacing with such as the Excel COM object. I think that whoever decided that the documentation is not good for US consumption hasn't ever had to program before.
Here's the deal that you don't pick up on Fox News or whatever your source of how Christians think/feel, etc... Even if "scathing sarcasm" was a sin, I wouldn't nor anyone else who wanted to would go to Hell. Now let that sink in for a bit.
Basically the argument is made, well if God is who he say he is, why doesn't he just simply come to Earth and say, "Here I am! I'm God! See I'm real!"? We'd all believe, right? Either that or we'd kill him and cast him off as a fool. Perhaps we would brutally kill him on a couple of sticks. I know Fox News and all the other modern day Pharisees would.
Okay, so I guess the deal is this. There is no man without sin. Therefore, none of us is worthy of Heaven. We're all totally going to Hell. Now being a merciful God, he came up with a way out. If we just admit that we're imperfect and believe that only through God's grace can we go to Heaven then he'll let us in. Pretty simple.
So the default consequence of dieing is a trip to Hell (since nobody's worthy of Heaven). A loving God doesn't want people to go to Hell. He makes a way out.
Now whether you believe that or not is your own business. But I hope that puts a dent in your perspective of what Christians actually believe. It's not, "if I sin I go to Hell". It's "because I sin, I should go to Hell, but Jesus made a way out, and nothing can take that away".
Okay, now why are scientist arguing that it is Creationists who oppose the LHC? As far as I know, Creationists don't believe in the Big Bang. More specifically most Christians believe that a rapture is going to occur along with some other events before the end of the world. These events are prophesied to take over several millennium after they start.
Let's just call this what it is. It's a Scientific civil war. Some scientists disagree with other scientists.
I guess scientists have created a flow chart out there that's a little outdated. Normally it says "Does someone else oppose your theories?" If Yes say, "They're just ignorant American Christians". It just won't work this time. Argue amongst yourselves. Christians can care less if you attempt to smash Hadrons together. It's not like quantum phenomenon is observable anyway.
Ah... So I see... So you're postulating that perhaps our souls are controlled by pink Unicorns. Not sure what your research on that is, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
So we're in agreement. We should teach neither theory in public schools to not upset anyone. Let those people who want to pursue those ideas do it on their own dime, right? Ah! Political correctness.
If only that was true. To be honest, I don't expect nor want Creationism taught by secular schools. I've taken literature classes at a secular college where I was asked questions about the Bible (According to Genesis, why did God create man?). Of course, I couldn't get any of the answers right because the answers depended upon a perspective which was unknown to me.
But I do want to take all controversial topics out of schools. Let's take a hot one like Sex Education. Some parents believe that children should abstain from sex until marriage. Others are under the impression that kids will do it anyway. Why not let the parents be parents and pass their values onto their children? I don't want the school telling my children "You're going to do it anyway, so be safe about it." Just as I'm sure you don't want your kids being told, "You're going to smoke crack anyway, so make sure it's safe crack." Now, don't misinterpret and assume that I think Sex is bad. I think unmarried sex is risky, just like drugs. But if you have two people who love each other and marry each other as virgins, there's zero risk. So that's what I want to pass onto my children. Why can't parents be parents? Why can't we disagree on things like the beginning of the Universe, sexual behavior of children, etc...? Why must we try to use the school to fight our battles? You keep your secular ideas out of school, I'll keep my theistic ideas out of school. Everybody wins.
Well, let's see how far we get with the scientific method with your Pink Unicorn remark.
1. Observation - There is nothing to observe that lead to the hypothesis.
Okay, now let's try intelligent design
1. Observation - The universe exists. 2. State the Problem - How does the universe exist? 3. Research the Problem - Some cultures believe in the existence of a deity creating the universe, others believe the universe came about by itself, others believe that we may be living in a simulation (such as The Matrix). 4. Hypothesis - The Universe was created by an intelligent entity.
Now, nowhere in the scientific method does it state that the hypothesis has to be correct. It is just an educated guess based on the research phase. Your pink Unicorn theory doesn't even make it past the first few steps of the scientific method. So it is not comparable to Intelligent Design.
I guess my point is that we should not hinder people from exploring every possibility. Even ones that would result in uncomfortable facts if they were proven. There's just too much out there that suggests an existence that contains more than four dimension to deny that possibility. 5+ dimensional space can provide a plausible answer to problems such as the double slit experiment. So what's to say that these extra dimensions aren't extra calculated dimensions in a simulation (such as myVar[time][height][width][depth][]) or the extra dimensions can be the result of spiritual dimensions. Perhaps on the quantum level subatomic particles and photons interact with the spiritual realm. If that's true then it would explain why our observation shows the subatomic particles and photons in both places at once and neither place at the same time.
What I don't understand is why? Why couldn't the idea that we exist in a simulation not be scientifically explored? Why can't we hypothesize the existence of multiple realms of existence and then try to test its viability? How are these things not science?
If they are not science then are proposed solution to quantum problems (Parallel Universes, etc...) also not science? I think when we start ruling out things before we explore them is a disservice to science. For example, we can't measure the path a photon travels in the double slit experiment. Does that mean that since its not testable and observable that it ceases to be science? No! It means we ponder theories and ponder ideas on how we can observe these things. Just because there doesn't exist a test to "see" the heavenly realm doesn't mean that we need to stop people from trying to prove/disprove its existence. Just because nobody can prove this Universe is created doesn't mean we should table it as a myth and come up with crazier theories (like the laws of physics changing over time to accommodate models of the Universe)
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty cool that you can learn how to play an instrument from flight simulator.
I bought my PS3 just for the Other OS feature. My hacked XBox got bricked and my HTPC broke, so I wanted a legit way of bringing MythTV to my TV without having to build a new HTPC.
Woohoo! I can't wait for spike impaling controllers! I guess I'll have to wait on getting a new Wii until that feature comes out.
I think that if everyone set aside their fanboyisms, they will see that the Wii is the game console of the decade, not the 360. No other console has expanded the audience of gamers like the Wii has. Previous generation of gamers have Wiis and now so do normal people. I'd use to come to work and say, I got the new Mario Kart and people would think, "Who cares?" Now I hear from others that they recently purchased the new Mario Kart and its fun. Wii brought games to the mainstream.
They probably should have googled if the name had already existed.
Gee... I'm a Southern Baptist (who regularly attend church, Creationist, etc...), however; I neither care for Pat Robertson nor Sarah Palin.
I must agree. My 2 year old daughter loves to play games like Nintendogs and Hello Kitty because it is an intuitive interface. She also loves Punchout!!! for the Wii. But when it comes to games that require buttons (e.g. New Super Mario Bros.) she isn't able to grasp how to play.
I don't seem to have trouble with myth these days. I use my Sony PlayStation 3 as a frontend via upnp. I haven't tried the latest yet, but if it's not there already, I'm going to try to improve the upnp support so that I can do more such as deleting recordings straight from the PS3.
Heh.. I thought you said that the world needs to ditch Diggers. (though that's not what you said, I agree that we should ditch Diggers).
I don't think anything will happen. Aren't governments sovereign. Do they really have to follow US law?
Sonic Rush was alright, but it's still not what I want in a Sonic game. I guess I'm still looking for a Sonic 4. A Sonic game that has one button control and allows you to explore it in different ways with different characters. Perhaps even some online/offline coop. I don't mind the extra characters, but I think it takes away from what Sonic is when you have to remember to do a bazillion tricks to be able to pull off a modified spindash.
Pretty much. That's my big beef with XAML right now. I'm having trouble understanding what exactly is going on underneath the tags.
Since when can you use a mouse in Emacs or VI?
If what you're wanting to do is homebrew, pick up a Datel "Games 'n Music" card at your local Wal-Mart for $20. It does homebrew, emulation, etc... It does not play commercial games, though.
Obviously, you missed the joke. I have a wife and a daughter as well, but I thought it was funny.
Well as mentioned previously, the flood wasn't on Mars. In fact, it wouldn't really matter what day life on Mars was created. In fact, if we found life on Mars that was significantly similar to ours (DNA based, etc...), then we can draw many conclusions including contamination from humans or the same designer created life on both planets.
Now whether or not you believe in the Judeo-Christian version of history or not, there are many different cultures who talk of a great flood. It may be plausible that one in fact happened.
My favorite CS books are the Chronicles of Narnia followed by Mere Christianity.
What's there to acknowledge? I think MSDN is one of the best sources of documentation EVER. Trust me. Every program in Delphi? Way more difficult than going to MSDN to learn how to interface with SharePoint. They even have documentation on how to interface with things that they suggest not interfacing with such as the Excel COM object. I think that whoever decided that the documentation is not good for US consumption hasn't ever had to program before.
Here's the deal that you don't pick up on Fox News or whatever your source of how Christians think/feel, etc... Even if "scathing sarcasm" was a sin, I wouldn't nor anyone else who wanted to would go to Hell. Now let that sink in for a bit.
Basically the argument is made, well if God is who he say he is, why doesn't he just simply come to Earth and say, "Here I am! I'm God! See I'm real!"? We'd all believe, right? Either that or we'd kill him and cast him off as a fool. Perhaps we would brutally kill him on a couple of sticks. I know Fox News and all the other modern day Pharisees would.
Okay, so I guess the deal is this. There is no man without sin. Therefore, none of us is worthy of Heaven. We're all totally going to Hell. Now being a merciful God, he came up with a way out. If we just admit that we're imperfect and believe that only through God's grace can we go to Heaven then he'll let us in. Pretty simple.
So the default consequence of dieing is a trip to Hell (since nobody's worthy of Heaven). A loving God doesn't want people to go to Hell. He makes a way out.
Now whether you believe that or not is your own business. But I hope that puts a dent in your perspective of what Christians actually believe. It's not, "if I sin I go to Hell". It's "because I sin, I should go to Hell, but Jesus made a way out, and nothing can take that away".
*cricket* *cricket* Wha? Oh, you were trying to be funny. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world, but to save it through him. (See John 3:17)
Okay, now why are scientist arguing that it is Creationists who oppose the LHC? As far as I know, Creationists don't believe in the Big Bang. More specifically most Christians believe that a rapture is going to occur along with some other events before the end of the world. These events are prophesied to take over several millennium after they start.
Let's just call this what it is. It's a Scientific civil war. Some scientists disagree with other scientists.
I guess scientists have created a flow chart out there that's a little outdated. Normally it says "Does someone else oppose your theories?" If Yes say, "They're just ignorant American Christians". It just won't work this time. Argue amongst yourselves. Christians can care less if you attempt to smash Hadrons together. It's not like quantum phenomenon is observable anyway.
Ah... So I see... So you're postulating that perhaps our souls are controlled by pink Unicorns. Not sure what your research on that is, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
So we're in agreement. We should teach neither theory in public schools to not upset anyone. Let those people who want to pursue those ideas do it on their own dime, right? Ah! Political correctness.
If only that was true. To be honest, I don't expect nor want Creationism taught by secular schools. I've taken literature classes at a secular college where I was asked questions about the Bible (According to Genesis, why did God create man?). Of course, I couldn't get any of the answers right because the answers depended upon a perspective which was unknown to me.
But I do want to take all controversial topics out of schools. Let's take a hot one like Sex Education. Some parents believe that children should abstain from sex until marriage. Others are under the impression that kids will do it anyway. Why not let the parents be parents and pass their values onto their children? I don't want the school telling my children "You're going to do it anyway, so be safe about it." Just as I'm sure you don't want your kids being told, "You're going to smoke crack anyway, so make sure it's safe crack." Now, don't misinterpret and assume that I think Sex is bad. I think unmarried sex is risky, just like drugs. But if you have two people who love each other and marry each other as virgins, there's zero risk. So that's what I want to pass onto my children. Why can't parents be parents? Why can't we disagree on things like the beginning of the Universe, sexual behavior of children, etc...? Why must we try to use the school to fight our battles? You keep your secular ideas out of school, I'll keep my theistic ideas out of school. Everybody wins.
Well, let's see how far we get with the scientific method with your Pink Unicorn remark.
1. Observation - There is nothing to observe that lead to the hypothesis.
Okay, now let's try intelligent design
1. Observation - The universe exists.
2. State the Problem - How does the universe exist?
3. Research the Problem - Some cultures believe in the existence of a deity creating the universe, others believe the universe came about by itself, others believe that we may be living in a simulation (such as The Matrix).
4. Hypothesis - The Universe was created by an intelligent entity.
Now, nowhere in the scientific method does it state that the hypothesis has to be correct. It is just an educated guess based on the research phase. Your pink Unicorn theory doesn't even make it past the first few steps of the scientific method. So it is not comparable to Intelligent Design.
I guess my point is that we should not hinder people from exploring every possibility. Even ones that would result in uncomfortable facts if they were proven. There's just too much out there that suggests an existence that contains more than four dimension to deny that possibility. 5+ dimensional space can provide a plausible answer to problems such as the double slit experiment. So what's to say that these extra dimensions aren't extra calculated dimensions in a simulation (such as myVar[time][height][width][depth][]) or the extra dimensions can be the result of spiritual dimensions. Perhaps on the quantum level subatomic particles and photons interact with the spiritual realm. If that's true then it would explain why our observation shows the subatomic particles and photons in both places at once and neither place at the same time.
What I don't understand is why? Why couldn't the idea that we exist in a simulation not be scientifically explored? Why can't we hypothesize the existence of multiple realms of existence and then try to test its viability? How are these things not science?
If they are not science then are proposed solution to quantum problems (Parallel Universes, etc...) also not science? I think when we start ruling out things before we explore them is a disservice to science. For example, we can't measure the path a photon travels in the double slit experiment. Does that mean that since its not testable and observable that it ceases to be science? No! It means we ponder theories and ponder ideas on how we can observe these things. Just because there doesn't exist a test to "see" the heavenly realm doesn't mean that we need to stop people from trying to prove/disprove its existence. Just because nobody can prove this Universe is created doesn't mean we should table it as a myth and come up with crazier theories (like the laws of physics changing over time to accommodate models of the Universe)