This is demonstrably untrue. Jack Thompson names appears on more venues than slashdot, and is in fact a frequent guest on cable news programs, where he is called as an "expert" on violent video games. If we ignore him here, it will actually increase his ability to propagate baseless claims. Just because you havn't seen him mentioned anywhere else doesn't mean he is of no consequence, only that you are not his target audience.
Either you havn't thought about this very hard, or have decided to limit your definition of "shock" to the behaviors of early morning radio personalities. Reporters and editors have used shocking stories to achieve results both good (Nellie Bly) and bad (WIlliam Randolph Hearst). Shocking allegations have caused more than one leader to step down, and shocking brutality has kept more than one leader in power. The civil rights movement itself was spurred along by the widespread coverage of shocking events, like the murder of Emmit Till, and the violence at Birmingham, even Martin Luther King's assassination.
I hardly see why. The poster was not using his obscenity as evidence in a debate against Jack Thompson, rather instead he was stating it as a conclusion concerning Jack Thomson. The first is an ad hominem fallacy, the second a valid opinion, given the evidence. To reiterate, the poster was not using "Thompson is a fucking moron" in an argument against something Thompson was doing/saying, but rather was concluding "given these behaviors, I feel it it safe to conclude that thompson is, indeed, a fucking moron"
Absolutely true. Light one careless ship on fire, perhaps because they really don't know what you're up to, and the rest will scatter every time you reflect a little bit of light on them.
There is something to your comment, the idea of bot-human synergy. I've seen a fair amount of talk in chess about this, an evolution of the game where humans play with computer assistance.
Chess bots are known to play a far different game of chess than humans, which is why some grandmasters are far better against humans that bots, or vice versa.
By combining these, what you have is essentially two seperate gaming "intellegences" -the human playing an intuitive game, and the computer playing the statistical game - working together to play chess, or poker, at a level above either individually.
Go back and read your grandparent, then re-read your parent poster.
What the parent is saying is that they *are* putting a dangerous substance in their drugs: acetometaphin, which is toxic in large quantities. However, it doesn't seem toxic, in that it has no immediate ill effects if used in a dangerous concentration. It just quietly kills your liver. What the parent is saying is put a chemical in there that would prevent you from taking a truely dangerous quantites by giving you noticable side effects at sublethal doeses.
To recap, as it stands now it is easy to take a lethal doses of these painkillers without noticable discomfort. The parent wants to add substances that would make a lethal dose difficult or impossible to take due to planned side effects. The end result is that the drugs are safer, because they cannot be easily misused/overdosed on. Now do you see?
I think you are missing the point of what I was saying. Obviously, it is not possible to know every bit of data in the universe. However, if there is something science can't determine, it expects to know why, and in gratuitous detail.
To use your example, the "true answer" science found is the heisenberg uncertainty pricnciple. Science determined that it is not possible to know the position and velocity of a particle simultaniously, and proved it through rigorous mathmatics. Science certainly did not throw up its hands and say, "well, I guess it's just beyond our understanding."
Actually, the world views espoused by most religions are very similar to what you described. The format is more like this:
"As far as we understand, God allows X to happen for reason Y, but only He/She knows the answer, which He/She will reveal in time"
X in this case is usually a sociological concern such as poverty, war. death in general, ect., not a natural phenomena. The difference is that rather than assuming, as in science, that the true answer is eventually determinable, there is an assumption that the true answer is inscrutable to man, at least in his current form.
Don't forget, there are other savings to be had besides fuel. For starters, you don't get a $2000 (current) tax break on the non hybrid. Projected maintainence costs are expected to be lower as well.
I absolutely agree with you on this. Whoever wrote this "article" is the straw man incarnate. Though I am on another side of the OS divide, responding to this persons "arguments" would be a slap in the face to people like you who have well-reasoned positions that happen to be in opposition to mine.
It amazes me how many people feel obliged to voice their opinions as facts, even when they clearly don't have a leg to stand on. I think by far the best thing to do is to simply ignore people like this, though it is sad how common they seem to be.
Re:Well this renders space experimentation useless
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
So why don't we use the ISS then? I mean, we've poured billions into the damn thing, don't you think we ought to get some use out of it? Is here some reason you see a need for seperate facilities?
This was the shuttle's original mission, anyway, to shuttle cargo back and forth from orbit. It was assumed at first that there would be a permanent orbital structure as a destination for that cargo, i.e. a space station. Maybe it's time we got back to that idea.
It takes more money, more time, more energy, and more effort to recycle anything other than aluminum cans - and there is no shortage of aluminum on this planet.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but you seem to be saying, "Aluminum recycling is more cost-effective than refinement of aluminum ores, but there are plentiful supplies of aluminum ores, so we don't need to recycle aluminum" You realize that doesn't make sense, right? I assume you meant something else.
Also, besides aluminum, even consumer level recycling is very efficent when applied to any metal, including copper, lead and steel.
And this is why it broadcast will continue on... for many lower income/unstable income people broadcast TV is what you watch when you can't afford cable (been there myself)
But if you don't have broadcast to watch, then you could start to develop other, non-TV habits. Which would be bad for TV advertisers, and a consumer society that is mostly driven by the lower classes.
I seem to recall some cryostasis experiments being carried out on dogs some time back where they were using a flourocarbon blood substitute with similar objectives: chill them down to zero, hold them without oxygen, then revive them later.
I wonder why dogs seem like the best candidates for this stuff?
What you really need to be a superhero are two things, Awareness and Transportation. these traits are almost always found in fictional superheros, and would be necessary for any real life superheros to acheive.
You need to have some sort of augumented awareness of crimes as they happen. Most fictional superheros have ome form of this or other, be it supernatural hearing, telepathy, remote sensors, ect. Otherwise you would have to roam around and just try to spot crime happening. I've spent a lot of time out at night, and I've never seen a crime being comitted. Obviously, i would not have made much of a superhero, as i would have never seen anything to stop.
Item two is transportation: you must be able to get to the scence of the crime quickly in order to prevent it, then leave just as quickly, or you yourself will also be arrested. This is why many fictional heros fly, spiderman swings on webs, ect. Shootings and muggings happen in seconds, not much time for you to get involved. You need to be able to do more than just drive there, as this is what the police are doing.
There you have it, if you have those two things, you can be a vigilante style superhero with little else in the way of training or equipment.
Because they don't see him coming. Much of the effect of what he tries to achieve comes from attacking unexpectedly from odd angles, notably above (humans are notorious for not looking up much). If you don't know which direction he's coming from, a sniper rifle is worse than useless.
Actually, this kind of change is more a positive than a negative for this kind of project. Though there arn't too many, there are reasons why knowing what an area looked like a few years back is useful. Being able to catalouge the growth and change of an urban area has to be plus for city planners, and having visual records of the conditions of buildings would be worthwhile for insurance adjusters. Mostly it would be good for sentamentalists like me to see how their hometown looked before it was overrun by enormous rampaging boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is demonstrably untrue. Jack Thompson names appears on more venues than slashdot, and is in fact a frequent guest on cable news programs, where he is called as an "expert" on violent video games. If we ignore him here, it will actually increase his ability to propagate baseless claims. Just because you havn't seen him mentioned anywhere else doesn't mean he is of no consequence, only that you are not his target audience.
Don't forget the preloading of slurs and overgeneralizations to be used against anyone who might call them on it. That was my favorite part.
Either you havn't thought about this very hard, or have decided to limit your definition of "shock" to the behaviors of early morning radio personalities. Reporters and editors have used shocking stories to achieve results both good (Nellie Bly) and bad (WIlliam Randolph Hearst). Shocking allegations have caused more than one leader to step down, and shocking brutality has kept more than one leader in power. The civil rights movement itself was spurred along by the widespread coverage of shocking events, like the murder of Emmit Till, and the violence at Birmingham, even Martin Luther King's assassination.
I hardly see why. The poster was not using his obscenity as evidence in a debate against Jack Thompson, rather instead he was stating it as a conclusion concerning Jack Thomson. The first is an ad hominem fallacy, the second a valid opinion, given the evidence. To reiterate, the poster was not using "Thompson is a fucking moron" in an argument against something Thompson was doing/saying, but rather was concluding "given these behaviors, I feel it it safe to conclude that thompson is, indeed, a fucking moron"
Absolutely true. Light one careless ship on fire, perhaps because they really don't know what you're up to, and the rest will scatter every time you reflect a little bit of light on them.
Chess bots are known to play a far different game of chess than humans, which is why some grandmasters are far better against humans that bots, or vice versa.
By combining these, what you have is essentially two seperate gaming "intellegences" -the human playing an intuitive game, and the computer playing the statistical game - working together to play chess, or poker, at a level above either individually.
What the parent is saying is that they *are* putting a dangerous substance in their drugs: acetometaphin, which is toxic in large quantities. However, it doesn't seem toxic, in that it has no immediate ill effects if used in a dangerous concentration. It just quietly kills your liver. What the parent is saying is put a chemical in there that would prevent you from taking a truely dangerous quantites by giving you noticable side effects at sublethal doeses.
To recap, as it stands now it is easy to take a lethal doses of these painkillers without noticable discomfort. The parent wants to add substances that would make a lethal dose difficult or impossible to take due to planned side effects. The end result is that the drugs are safer, because they cannot be easily misused/overdosed on. Now do you see?
actually, that's what wood is meant for.
I think you are missing the point of what I was saying. Obviously, it is not possible to know every bit of data in the universe. However, if there is something science can't determine, it expects to know why, and in gratuitous detail.
To use your example, the "true answer" science found is the heisenberg uncertainty pricnciple. Science determined that it is not possible to know the position and velocity of a particle simultaniously, and proved it through rigorous mathmatics. Science certainly did not throw up its hands and say, "well, I guess it's just beyond our understanding."
"As far as we understand, God allows X to happen for reason Y, but only He/She knows the answer, which He/She will reveal in time"
X in this case is usually a sociological concern such as poverty, war. death in general, ect., not a natural phenomena. The difference is that rather than assuming, as in science, that the true answer is eventually determinable, there is an assumption that the true answer is inscrutable to man, at least in his current form.
Don't forget, there are other savings to be had besides fuel. For starters, you don't get a $2000 (current) tax break on the non hybrid. Projected maintainence costs are expected to be lower as well.
Hmmm, if only we knew where to find these so-called "blue-green algae"
Who will play the algae?
Whew, that took a load off my mind. I guess it wasn't so bad after all.
It amazes me how many people feel obliged to voice their opinions as facts, even when they clearly don't have a leg to stand on. I think by far the best thing to do is to simply ignore people like this, though it is sad how common they seem to be.
This was the shuttle's original mission, anyway, to shuttle cargo back and forth from orbit. It was assumed at first that there would be a permanent orbital structure as a destination for that cargo, i.e. a space station. Maybe it's time we got back to that idea.
Actually, smoking was viewed as harmful by some from quite a ways back.... http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjcounte.htm
http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_ details.cfm?resourceID=1241&category=Industries&su bcategory=Glass§or=All
ask and ye shall recieve
I'm not sure what you mean here, but you seem to be saying, "Aluminum recycling is more cost-effective than refinement of aluminum ores, but there are plentiful supplies of aluminum ores, so we don't need to recycle aluminum" You realize that doesn't make sense, right? I assume you meant something else.
Also, besides aluminum, even consumer level recycling is very efficent when applied to any metal, including copper, lead and steel.
I actually did #5 for a while, and yes, I live in the country.
But if you don't have broadcast to watch, then you could start to develop other, non-TV habits. Which would be bad for TV advertisers, and a consumer society that is mostly driven by the lower classes.
I seem to recall some cryostasis experiments being carried out on dogs some time back where they were using a flourocarbon blood substitute with similar objectives: chill them down to zero, hold them without oxygen, then revive them later. I wonder why dogs seem like the best candidates for this stuff?
You need to have some sort of augumented awareness of crimes as they happen. Most fictional superheros have ome form of this or other, be it supernatural hearing, telepathy, remote sensors, ect. Otherwise you would have to roam around and just try to spot crime happening. I've spent a lot of time out at night, and I've never seen a crime being comitted. Obviously, i would not have made much of a superhero, as i would have never seen anything to stop.
Item two is transportation: you must be able to get to the scence of the crime quickly in order to prevent it, then leave just as quickly, or you yourself will also be arrested. This is why many fictional heros fly, spiderman swings on webs, ect. Shootings and muggings happen in seconds, not much time for you to get involved. You need to be able to do more than just drive there, as this is what the police are doing.
There you have it, if you have those two things, you can be a vigilante style superhero with little else in the way of training or equipment.
Because they don't see him coming. Much of the effect of what he tries to achieve comes from attacking unexpectedly from odd angles, notably above (humans are notorious for not looking up much). If you don't know which direction he's coming from, a sniper rifle is worse than useless.
Actually, this kind of change is more a positive than a negative for this kind of project. Though there arn't too many, there are reasons why knowing what an area looked like a few years back is useful. Being able to catalouge the growth and change of an urban area has to be plus for city planners, and having visual records of the conditions of buildings would be worthwhile for insurance adjusters. Mostly it would be good for sentamentalists like me to see how their hometown looked before it was overrun by enormous rampaging boxes.