Most of us who use Windows and have some tech savvy are the gamer audience
WTF? Most typical gamers have little tech savvy. The programmers, scientific users, and Computer Science professionals would be the more savvy audience.
What a miscarriage of justice. Just when you think nerds are getting some respect, some grumpy old Dean keeps us down again. How many times must we make our revenge? Even nerds don't have calculators that count that high.
Maybe this could be a solution for Bovine America.
Problem is, where do you get mains power in a pasture? I also don't think the Wiimote is designed for hoofed feet. It would be called the Moomote if it were.
Something I would prefer would be motion sensor controllers, fastened to the feet, to be a substitute for mat-style dance controllers. I read of many diificulties with the dance pads. If one ponders it, leaping upon your interface is going to increase wear significantly (unless you pay $200 for one made with more durable materials). Wireless sensing will possibly avoid all the physical problems of human/dance interfaces.
I think we can now officially declare humanity to be doomed when exercise means playing a video game. Could the last human please turn out the light when they leave? Oh, and remember to turn off the console and plasma TV too.
Yeah, I was really disappointed. I've heard about this device before, and more detailed specifics about it would be very interesting, but this article is just a fluff piece.
See, you aren't willing to prove a thing. You put the burden on me and then take pot shots when I provide ample support for my positions.
Well, you haven't provided any support for your position. The quotes you provided don't match your claims. And the burden is on you, because you were the one who claimed that schools were telling your kids that the earth will be destroyed if you don't recycle.
Meanwhile, you are weasling away from the point.
No, I am not. I am trying to remain on point, while you go off on tangents. Again, where is the proof of this "earth will be destroyed" claim you made?
Now, instead of can they be renewed, you say we can't renew them today.
Right. We don't have anyway of renewing them, therefore, they can't be renewed. Unless you have invented some technology that does so. You'd make a lot of money if you had, so why not show us?
On the one hand you aren't saying there are apocolyptic consequences to not recycling,
No, I never said that. Please cite where I did.
but on the other hand you argue we must recycle else the pollution would be too great!
No, I didn't. I said that simply importing more resources from space would likely be too great. notice the qualifier there. As we have not developed this technology yet, it is a completely hypothetical question. Show me the technology, then we can analyze it.
The fact you don't realize this is religious drivel makes it even more funny. I would guess you are late twenties of age, and haven't gotten to the point at which you can think for yourself.
There's nothing religious about it. The fact is that the way we currently consume resources causes pollution and degradation of our environment. it's not like believing in a god, it's about observing reality. I'm well beyond my twenties, by the way, but I don't see why that should matter.
I see you prefer ad hominem arguments like "can't think for yourself" to rationality.
Now, please tell me the element we are running out of that makes it necessary to mine asteroids, if we dont' recycle?
Did I say anything about elements? Clue: we typically don't use pure elements for resources. Another clue: mining the earth takes space. Human population is increasing.
Where do you think we are going to get more oil from once we have depleted the finite supply? What do you think our consumer products are made of?
don't forget that the price of replication of software is ZERO. And besides, if you don't like it, you don't die, you just have to look for a different vendor. Unlike a tire going flat in the middle of the highway:)
That the price of replication is zero, is irrelevant. If mission-critical software fails, that can cost a lot of money, or even destroy an organization/company. "Just look for a different vendor" is often not a trivial task, as you make it out to be. It can be expensive, and often there are no alternatives available. That is why companies who stick by their software and guarantee support are important.
As others have pointed out, it's what governments should be doing anyway, since it's developed with public funds, and is also an issue of freedom and openness in government.
That doesn't mean they should blindly use software from people who aren't willing to support it. They probably should be developing their own public domain software, but there's no reason for them to accept software from some group, simply because it is F/OSS.
And, they can extend F/OSS to make it work better for their specific task, without having to go outside their organization to make their changes. But, like any tool, it only works well where it was designed to work.
There's the problem. Many F/OSS advocates do argue that F/OSS is the only valid tool, and that using proprietary software is wrong. And in fact, this does result in in the software being "foisted" upon people - as a tech admin with this philosophy will force F/OSS on his/her organization. Just as a similar zealot in the same position will force proprietary solutions on the users, even if there are better F/OSS solutions.
Although the "force" may not be ultimate power, as the users can always quit the organization, or lobby to get the tech admin fired - in reality that is often not practical. I guess the real root of the problem is that tech and admin staff often get too much power to decide what the userbase uses, rather than the users themselves. This is true whether the environment is proprietary or open.
You haven't. The material you quoted actually diminishes your case, because it says nothing even close to what you claim it says.
This particular book attempts to paint a picture of man influencing his environment in dangerous ways, and that recycling, clean burning cars, stopping cutting down trees, and even not washing your car!, are ways to salvation and avoiding the apocolypse.
Where does it mention the words "salvation" or "apocalypse"? It seems that those are embellishments you are adding yourself.
No, you didn't. You did not quote the section where it says "recycle, or the earth will be destroyed."
Prove to me we are depleting resources that can not be renewed.
We don't yet have any way of renewing resources such as fossil fuels and minerals. We could possibly bring more in by mining in space, but that is not practical at the moment, and even if we did, the pollution it causes would still be an issue. How do you propose we renew these resources?
Ignore the point if you will. Religious bigots have a problem in seeing the truth often.
Would you care to explain how I am a religious bigot?
If the earth gets too hot, all people will die.
People create C02.
C02 increases the temperature of the earth.
Right.
If we don't cut down as many trees, will that help the C02 levels?
If we have cars that get better gas mileage, will that help c02 levels?
Perhaps/probably.
The earth has some resources that can not be replaced. Man is using up those resources. Man needs those resources to survive. If you recycle, then the resources won't get used up so quickly.
Right.
Now, I'm not trying to scare you at all with any crazy ideas here! I don't mean that man is increasing the temperature of the earth and that we might all get cooked, or that if you don't recycle you will die, but you might want to think about it.
Why do you make the crazy leap from that to "you will die" or "the earth will be destroyed"? This is not likely to happen within your lifetime, so it doesn't mean "you will die." Whether humans are on it or not, the earth will not be destroyed because of lack of recycling.
I think someone somewhere said religion blinds the masses, or other. Geez.
So, where's the religion? The only religion seems to be that you don't like the facts, and you jump to paranoid conclusions.
Imagine my surprise to find an entire chapter on the importance of recycling so that we don't make the earth inhospitable to us.
Why would you be surprised by that? We have finite resources, and we can't go on consuming new materials and throwing away the old ones forever. Why do you have a problem with these facts? And why did you say that the books said "the earth would be destroyed" if we don't recycle?
The earth being destroyed, and it being inhospitable are two very different things.
Why would sentient beings naturally want to understand the world around them.
Because they need/want to survive. Not trying to understand one's world is a recipe for death and suffering.
And I find it funny that on a forum frequented by people of above average intelligence, they still find it difficult to see why people 'believe' without proof.
Is this statement directed at me? I don't find it difficult to see why people believe. I just think that we go way too far with it.
The question is what you believe in. Everyone believes in something without proof. Everyone. Sometimes, other people believe things you will not understand. Live with it.
I am living with it, believe me (heh). I fail to see what point you are making. Sure, people believe in things. I can't stop that. But many people take massive leaps of faith that do them great harm, without any reason. I accept that, but it would be nice if people were a little more rational.
It's one thing to believe something based on a hunch/intuition or previous experience. It's another to believe fairytales, when reality shows the opposite. Belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is pretty close to insanity.
I don't think it's _necessary_, I just don't think it occurred to people to try to systematically analyse the world until they believed in god.
That does not seem plausible. I don't think the people who came up with ideas to make fire believed in any kind of god as we know it. They would have made fire to keep warm, not to deconstruct god.
I don't know, but I reckon it's interesting that the first attempts in science occured at around the same time as the flowering in theology...
Eh? Would you have a cite for this? Although it may not be "science" as we see it, I believe humans have always been engaging in some form of deduction since we became sentient. Historical records don't go back that far.
Likewise, athiests have set back science much more than they have advanced it with any token efforts. The main mechanism for this is keeping the majority of people in a state of ignorant despair, as there is no reason for scientific advancement if life is purposeless and meaningless.
What the fuck are you talking about? Atheists have no desire to keep people in ignorance. They do not benefit from this at all. Churches, however, do benefit from ignorance.
Atheism does not mean that life is purposeless and meaningless. It simply means that one does not believe in god. Why would you think that not believing in god makes life meaningless?
This has given rise to a culture where scientists are rare, and many scientists have to fight against society to be heard.
Atheists are an extreme minority in society. So, it is ridiculous to say that atheists have shaped this, when the majority of the world is religious, and it's the atheists and scientists who have to struggle against society.
Isn't making up facts to justify bigotry fun?
It might be fun for you, but you are the only one making up stuff. What I said is based on reality. Switching the words around doesn't make it true.
I think it is telling that your post reads like a white supremacist's would read about black people.
But the white supremacists would not be factual. Blacks do not dominate society the way religions do. Blacks do not preach a culture of ignorance. Religious people do. They are welcome to their beliefs, but don't pretend those beliefs do anything but hold humans back.
"Think of the earth as a giant life-support system for all of humanity. ..Interactions between the Earth's systems can cause changes in the Earth's environments. . ..Humans have found ways to survive by using natural resources to change their immediate surroundings."
Right, so they are expounding on facts. No religion or falsehood here.
Sections on water pollution includes the section "Nonpoint-Source Pollution" which shows a happy family washing their car. "All waste water and runoff eventuallyt enter a body of water, usually a steram. Every stream leads to a river, and every river leads to the ocean." [Is that really true? I don't think so.]
Well, where else do rivers go? There are probably some counter-examples, such as rivers that just dry up, or those that lead to lakes. But they would be atypical. So, if you were pendantic, you might have a point. But the larger point is that what goes into streams affects what is downstream. That point remains valid, because even if a stream leads to a lake or dries up on drought-stricken farmland, the pollutants affect the environment and the wellbeing of people and animals who use the water or land on which the stream flows through.
"Scientists hae estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere over the last 100 years. The model should therefore be able to predict how mmuch warmer the atmosphere is today than it was 100 years ago."
Yes, so what's wrong with that? Where is religion involved in this statement of fact?
The implication is that it is a fact that C02 levels [implicitely that man has added] are responsible for whatever temperature increase over the last 100 years.
Where does it say that man has added the CO2? You seem to be adding that part yourself, as it is not in your quote. CO2 is a major factor in temperature, so it, along with other factors, is a significant part of the calculations.
Now, I don't know the truth of it one way or another, but I do not believe it is a scientific fact whether man is responsible for increased temperature, or even if it is known whether C02 alone is responsible for temperature increases.
Where does it state that "man is responsible" for CO2 increases? Where does it say that CO2 alone is responsible for increased temperatures?
Even though it doesn't state it, you would have to be pretty ignorant to think that humans have not added CO2 to the atmosphere. What's so controversial about that idea? It is obvious that humans create a lot of CO2 in producing energy.
Try doing that with closed source products. You can't even find out the names of the coders working on it, much less contract them directly.
That's not the case with most of the applications I use. They list the names of the developers, and in many cases, I do contact them directly and get excellent support. Wheras with some OSS projects, it's nearly impossible to get a response from the developer. You might want to think about your sweeping generalizations.
Especially with the smaller shareware developers, they seem to care a lot more about their users than some OSS projects do. After all, their livelihood comes from satisfying customers and getting good word-of-mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
And you get rewarded for exercise in the form of hot grits.
WTF? Most typical gamers have little tech savvy. The programmers, scientific users, and Computer Science professionals would be the more savvy audience.
I got cancer just by reading your post.
What a miscarriage of justice. Just when you think nerds are getting some respect, some grumpy old Dean keeps us down again. How many times must we make our revenge? Even nerds don't have calculators that count that high.
Natalie Portman, on the other hand...
Problem is, where do you get mains power in a pasture? I also don't think the Wiimote is designed for hoofed feet. It would be called the Moomote if it were.
Something I would prefer would be motion sensor controllers, fastened to the feet, to be a substitute for mat-style dance controllers. I read of many diificulties with the dance pads. If one ponders it, leaping upon your interface is going to increase wear significantly (unless you pay $200 for one made with more durable materials). Wireless sensing will possibly avoid all the physical problems of human/dance interfaces.
I think we can now officially declare humanity to be doomed when exercise means playing a video game. Could the last human please turn out the light when they leave? Oh, and remember to turn off the console and plasma TV too.
Slashdot?
Slashdot?
It also sucks.
Does it? From my experience, Libertarians only have a few things in common with liberals. When it comes to economic issues, they are pretty far-right.
Well, you haven't provided any support for your position. The quotes you provided don't match your claims. And the burden is on you, because you were the one who claimed that schools were telling your kids that the earth will be destroyed if you don't recycle.
Meanwhile, you are weasling away from the point.
No, I am not. I am trying to remain on point, while you go off on tangents. Again, where is the proof of this "earth will be destroyed" claim you made?
Now, instead of can they be renewed, you say we can't renew them today.
Right. We don't have anyway of renewing them, therefore, they can't be renewed. Unless you have invented some technology that does so. You'd make a lot of money if you had, so why not show us?
On the one hand you aren't saying there are apocolyptic consequences to not recycling,
No, I never said that. Please cite where I did.
but on the other hand you argue we must recycle else the pollution would be too great!
No, I didn't. I said that simply importing more resources from space would likely be too great. notice the qualifier there. As we have not developed this technology yet, it is a completely hypothetical question. Show me the technology, then we can analyze it.
The fact you don't realize this is religious drivel makes it even more funny. I would guess you are late twenties of age, and haven't gotten to the point at which you can think for yourself.
There's nothing religious about it. The fact is that the way we currently consume resources causes pollution and degradation of our environment. it's not like believing in a god, it's about observing reality. I'm well beyond my twenties, by the way, but I don't see why that should matter.
I see you prefer ad hominem arguments like "can't think for yourself" to rationality.
Now, please tell me the element we are running out of that makes it necessary to mine asteroids, if we dont' recycle?
Did I say anything about elements? Clue: we typically don't use pure elements for resources. Another clue: mining the earth takes space. Human population is increasing.
Where do you think we are going to get more oil from once we have depleted the finite supply? What do you think our consumer products are made of?
That the price of replication is zero, is irrelevant. If mission-critical software fails, that can cost a lot of money, or even destroy an organization/company. "Just look for a different vendor" is often not a trivial task, as you make it out to be. It can be expensive, and often there are no alternatives available. That is why companies who stick by their software and guarantee support are important.
That doesn't mean they should blindly use software from people who aren't willing to support it. They probably should be developing their own public domain software, but there's no reason for them to accept software from some group, simply because it is F/OSS.
There's the problem. Many F/OSS advocates do argue that F/OSS is the only valid tool, and that using proprietary software is wrong. And in fact, this does result in in the software being "foisted" upon people - as a tech admin with this philosophy will force F/OSS on his/her organization. Just as a similar zealot in the same position will force proprietary solutions on the users, even if there are better F/OSS solutions.
Although the "force" may not be ultimate power, as the users can always quit the organization, or lobby to get the tech admin fired - in reality that is often not practical. I guess the real root of the problem is that tech and admin staff often get too much power to decide what the userbase uses, rather than the users themselves. This is true whether the environment is proprietary or open.
You haven't. The material you quoted actually diminishes your case, because it says nothing even close to what you claim it says.
This particular book attempts to paint a picture of man influencing his environment in dangerous ways, and that recycling, clean burning cars, stopping cutting down trees, and even not washing your car!, are ways to salvation and avoiding the apocolypse.
Where does it mention the words "salvation" or "apocalypse"? It seems that those are embellishments you are adding yourself.
No, you didn't. You did not quote the section where it says "recycle, or the earth will be destroyed."
Prove to me we are depleting resources that can not be renewed.
We don't yet have any way of renewing resources such as fossil fuels and minerals. We could possibly bring more in by mining in space, but that is not practical at the moment, and even if we did, the pollution it causes would still be an issue. How do you propose we renew these resources?
Would you care to explain how I am a religious bigot?
If the earth gets too hot, all people will die. People create C02. C02 increases the temperature of the earth.
Right.
If we don't cut down as many trees, will that help the C02 levels? If we have cars that get better gas mileage, will that help c02 levels?
Perhaps/probably.
The earth has some resources that can not be replaced. Man is using up those resources. Man needs those resources to survive. If you recycle, then the resources won't get used up so quickly.
Right.
Now, I'm not trying to scare you at all with any crazy ideas here! I don't mean that man is increasing the temperature of the earth and that we might all get cooked, or that if you don't recycle you will die, but you might want to think about it.
Why do you make the crazy leap from that to "you will die" or "the earth will be destroyed"? This is not likely to happen within your lifetime, so it doesn't mean "you will die." Whether humans are on it or not, the earth will not be destroyed because of lack of recycling.
I think someone somewhere said religion blinds the masses, or other. Geez.
So, where's the religion? The only religion seems to be that you don't like the facts, and you jump to paranoid conclusions.
Why would you be surprised by that? We have finite resources, and we can't go on consuming new materials and throwing away the old ones forever. Why do you have a problem with these facts? And why did you say that the books said "the earth would be destroyed" if we don't recycle?
The earth being destroyed, and it being inhospitable are two very different things.
Because they need/want to survive. Not trying to understand one's world is a recipe for death and suffering.
And I find it funny that on a forum frequented by people of above average intelligence, they still find it difficult to see why people 'believe' without proof.
Is this statement directed at me? I don't find it difficult to see why people believe. I just think that we go way too far with it.
The question is what you believe in. Everyone believes in something without proof. Everyone. Sometimes, other people believe things you will not understand. Live with it.
I am living with it, believe me (heh). I fail to see what point you are making. Sure, people believe in things. I can't stop that. But many people take massive leaps of faith that do them great harm, without any reason. I accept that, but it would be nice if people were a little more rational.
It's one thing to believe something based on a hunch/intuition or previous experience. It's another to believe fairytales, when reality shows the opposite. Belief in the face of evidence to the contrary is pretty close to insanity.
That does not seem plausible. I don't think the people who came up with ideas to make fire believed in any kind of god as we know it. They would have made fire to keep warm, not to deconstruct god.
I don't know, but I reckon it's interesting that the first attempts in science occured at around the same time as the flowering in theology...
Eh? Would you have a cite for this? Although it may not be "science" as we see it, I believe humans have always been engaging in some form of deduction since we became sentient. Historical records don't go back that far.
What the fuck are you talking about? Atheists have no desire to keep people in ignorance. They do not benefit from this at all. Churches, however, do benefit from ignorance.
Atheism does not mean that life is purposeless and meaningless. It simply means that one does not believe in god. Why would you think that not believing in god makes life meaningless?
This has given rise to a culture where scientists are rare, and many scientists have to fight against society to be heard.
Atheists are an extreme minority in society. So, it is ridiculous to say that atheists have shaped this, when the majority of the world is religious, and it's the atheists and scientists who have to struggle against society.
Isn't making up facts to justify bigotry fun?
It might be fun for you, but you are the only one making up stuff. What I said is based on reality. Switching the words around doesn't make it true.
I think it is telling that your post reads like a white supremacist's would read about black people.
But the white supremacists would not be factual. Blacks do not dominate society the way religions do. Blacks do not preach a culture of ignorance. Religious people do. They are welcome to their beliefs, but don't pretend those beliefs do anything but hold humans back.
Right, so they are expounding on facts. No religion or falsehood here.
Sections on water pollution includes the section "Nonpoint-Source Pollution" which shows a happy family washing their car. "All waste water and runoff eventuallyt enter a body of water, usually a steram. Every stream leads to a river, and every river leads to the ocean." [Is that really true? I don't think so.]
Well, where else do rivers go? There are probably some counter-examples, such as rivers that just dry up, or those that lead to lakes. But they would be atypical. So, if you were pendantic, you might have a point. But the larger point is that what goes into streams affects what is downstream. That point remains valid, because even if a stream leads to a lake or dries up on drought-stricken farmland, the pollutants affect the environment and the wellbeing of people and animals who use the water or land on which the stream flows through.
"Scientists hae estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere over the last 100 years. The model should therefore be able to predict how mmuch warmer the atmosphere is today than it was 100 years ago."
Yes, so what's wrong with that? Where is religion involved in this statement of fact?
The implication is that it is a fact that C02 levels [implicitely that man has added] are responsible for whatever temperature increase over the last 100 years.
Where does it say that man has added the CO2? You seem to be adding that part yourself, as it is not in your quote. CO2 is a major factor in temperature, so it, along with other factors, is a significant part of the calculations.
Now, I don't know the truth of it one way or another, but I do not believe it is a scientific fact whether man is responsible for increased temperature, or even if it is known whether C02 alone is responsible for temperature increases.
Where does it state that "man is responsible" for CO2 increases? Where does it say that CO2 alone is responsible for increased temperatures?
Even though it doesn't state it, you would have to be pretty ignorant to think that humans have not added CO2 to the atmosphere. What's so controversial about that idea? It is obvious that humans create a lot of CO2 in producing energy.
That's not the case with most of the applications I use. They list the names of the developers, and in many cases, I do contact them directly and get excellent support. Wheras with some OSS projects, it's nearly impossible to get a response from the developer. You might want to think about your sweeping generalizations.
Especially with the smaller shareware developers, they seem to care a lot more about their users than some OSS projects do. After all, their livelihood comes from satisfying customers and getting good word-of-mouth.