Yeah, but those are the same people who think aliens are traveling across the vast distances of interstellar space to play ass-grab with rednecks in trailer parks. You have about as much chance of educating the unwashed masses as you do of convincing them to become washed masses. Best to keep sedating them with sports.
No kidding. No need to turn off any ports. Hollywood can deter me from pirating a movie simply by the words "A Michael Bay Film" to the opening of any movie.
What's more, when I was a kid, the "guards at the gates" were actual MP's (with rifles). Now they're all rent-a-cop contractors (thanks to the increased privatization of the military), armed at most with pistols. Security at U.S. military bases is an absolute joke, and has been for some time. The military just doesn't know how to be at war anymore.
IIRC, it had to do with some crazy stomach conditioning exercises not eating anything with meat in it for X hours beforehand. I have no idea if there was any validity to these claims. But, then again, I have no idea if there was any validity to ANYTHING that guy said.
"Except one guy who was seriously crazy. I mean like batshit loony crazy."
I once had a sociology class with a guy like that. He would literally spend the entire class ("Sociology of Religion" specifically) talking about running triathlons and all the drugs he had done in his life. One day the entire class time was dedicated to a guest lecture from one of his triathlete buddies (who talked mostly about the importance of proper stretching). The closest he ever came to talking about the subject of the class was when he went on a two-class tear about his various experiences with peyote (I did learn a lot about how to properly drink peyote without puking).
His testing methology in the class was absolutely bizarre (and he even admitted it in the first class). These tests consisted of 30-50 questions on material which was covered neither in his lectures nor the text (at least the text was on subject). Then he would grade on a curve. I consistently set the curve in the class with 50%-60% scores (and only because I had good general knowledge, not because I could possibly study for such bizarre "tests"). So I walked out of the class with a 100% average, with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject the class was supposed to be about. About the only thing I learned in the class was that the professor was batshit crazy and that tenure is the bulletproof vest of academia.
Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.
Speak for yourself. That show turned me into a multi-cultural hippie with a overly-romanticized view of people who live in garbage cans. How am I supposed to pursue a career in politics after they made me so accepting and open-minded?
Actually, I worry a LOT more about Apple than I do about MS in this regard. Apple is MUCH worse at suppressing information about security flaws (and pretty much everything else) and not fixing flaws for a long time than microsoft EVER was. And don't get me started on how aggressive and sneaky Apple software is compared to just about everyone else (anyone who has ever tried to completely remove iTunes or Quicktime from their system can attest that this). The main advantage Apple has traditionally enjoyed over MS is that Windows is such a popular target. But the idea that MS is uniquely weak or slow on security fixes is just not fair. And considering the number of cease-and-desist letters that come out of Apple each *day*, it's silly to cite MS as being particularly egregious in their secrecy either.
Even before powerpoint, there was the notorious professor who had a bunch of overhead transparencies that he'd been using for 20 years. Thankfully, he was the exception, not the rule. But, as you pointed out, any professor who doesn't care about the material or know how to teach is going to suck in pretty much ANY medium.
It's a nice flippant statement to make. But the first time you drive by an ER and see a dead guy sitting outside the door, I bet you would be pretty appalled. Now imagine a dead kid there too (they bring their families with them too, you know). If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you don't do it by letting the illegal workers die outside an emergency room because they got injured picking your crops. You do it by putting the American farmer or construction company owner who hired him in the first place in handcuffs and telling the other farmers/construction company owners that if they keep hiring illegals, they're next.
Well, in a sense, he's right. Since "free will" is a construct of language that we all *basically* agree on, that itself gives it about as much meaning as we are capable of. Just the fact that we believe we have options implies that we do from our own limited perspective, otherwise the possibility that we could even consider this to be the case would be insanity. Now our perspective is limited, granted, but if you're going to just throw it out completely because of that limitation, then you would also have to throw out all other academic knowledge with it (since it's *ALL* done by humans, and limited by our own shortcomings). Asking if there is an *objective* "free will," like asking if there is an objective "God," is absolutely pointless. We're humans--we CAN'T be objective.
As for me, I chose the bots because Kant's humor is just so dry next to Crow and Tom.
It's a shame this game has no coop or multiplayer. I know a lot of you will say there is nothing wrong with a well-done single player game, and I agree with you in spirit. But, in practice, a part of me looks at a game like this in 2009 and can't help but see it as, well...old-fashioned.
It seems that this would have been the ideal game for coop, and whatever Bioware's justification for not including it, I can't help but wonder if it wasn't just laziness or "We'll just do it the way we've always done it" obstinance. Bioware one proposed foray into multiplayer gaming seems to be Star Wars: The Old Republic, and even that (with it being PC only) seems kind of old-fashioned (made even more bizarre by the fact that KOTOR I and II made most of their sales on a console). I give them kudos for what they've done with single player games in the past, but I'm not confident they're adapting well to an online future (DLC aside).
Firefox is great. But it's all the amazing addons that make it really shine. So kudos to Mozilla, but even more kudos to all the hard-working code monkeys who gave us addons like NoScript, Adblock, and (appropriate for this forum) Slashdotter.
The thing that worries me (and that I have *yet* to hear addressed in any discussion of the issue) is "What happens if they prohibit insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing condition, but fail to set any premium limits for said coverage?" In other words, what's to stop an insurance company from telling a cancer patient, "Okay, we're not denying you coverage, but your premiums will be $1 million a month"? With no limits and no public option, someone in that position could well end up having to pay the fines, and they STILL wouldn't have coverage (talk about getting kicked when you're down!).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but those are the same people who think aliens are traveling across the vast distances of interstellar space to play ass-grab with rednecks in trailer parks. You have about as much chance of educating the unwashed masses as you do of convincing them to become washed masses. Best to keep sedating them with sports.
I guess it turns out that size DOES matter.
No kidding. No need to turn off any ports. Hollywood can deter me from pirating a movie simply by the words "A Michael Bay Film" to the opening of any movie.
What's more, when I was a kid, the "guards at the gates" were actual MP's (with rifles). Now they're all rent-a-cop contractors (thanks to the increased privatization of the military), armed at most with pistols. Security at U.S. military bases is an absolute joke, and has been for some time. The military just doesn't know how to be at war anymore.
Hey, the guys who ripped that one off actually ended up making $20 million. Anyone want to pay me for my new "Pearl" programming language?
If my sources are correct, all we have to do is kill a bunch of dinosaurs then wait.
Well, we Americans are scared as hell. For all we know, 7 meters could be HUGE!
It's not his fault, that's the way the professor spelled it in his overheads.
IIRC, it had to do with some crazy stomach conditioning exercises not eating anything with meat in it for X hours beforehand. I have no idea if there was any validity to these claims. But, then again, I have no idea if there was any validity to ANYTHING that guy said.
I wonder if anyone ever had the guts to put down "Is the professor of this class sane?" and answer "No."
I once had a sociology class with a guy like that. He would literally spend the entire class ("Sociology of Religion" specifically) talking about running triathlons and all the drugs he had done in his life. One day the entire class time was dedicated to a guest lecture from one of his triathlete buddies (who talked mostly about the importance of proper stretching). The closest he ever came to talking about the subject of the class was when he went on a two-class tear about his various experiences with peyote (I did learn a lot about how to properly drink peyote without puking).
His testing methology in the class was absolutely bizarre (and he even admitted it in the first class). These tests consisted of 30-50 questions on material which was covered neither in his lectures nor the text (at least the text was on subject). Then he would grade on a curve. I consistently set the curve in the class with 50%-60% scores (and only because I had good general knowledge, not because I could possibly study for such bizarre "tests"). So I walked out of the class with a 100% average, with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject the class was supposed to be about. About the only thing I learned in the class was that the professor was batshit crazy and that tenure is the bulletproof vest of academia.
Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.
And why does he keep avoiding the issue?
Speak for yourself. That show turned me into a multi-cultural hippie with a overly-romanticized view of people who live in garbage cans. How am I supposed to pursue a career in politics after they made me so accepting and open-minded?
Yeah, but with those odds the big Martian cities have to have at least a few people in them.
Actually, I worry a LOT more about Apple than I do about MS in this regard. Apple is MUCH worse at suppressing information about security flaws (and pretty much everything else) and not fixing flaws for a long time than microsoft EVER was. And don't get me started on how aggressive and sneaky Apple software is compared to just about everyone else (anyone who has ever tried to completely remove iTunes or Quicktime from their system can attest that this). The main advantage Apple has traditionally enjoyed over MS is that Windows is such a popular target. But the idea that MS is uniquely weak or slow on security fixes is just not fair. And considering the number of cease-and-desist letters that come out of Apple each *day*, it's silly to cite MS as being particularly egregious in their secrecy either.
Even before powerpoint, there was the notorious professor who had a bunch of overhead transparencies that he'd been using for 20 years. Thankfully, he was the exception, not the rule. But, as you pointed out, any professor who doesn't care about the material or know how to teach is going to suck in pretty much ANY medium.
It's a nice flippant statement to make. But the first time you drive by an ER and see a dead guy sitting outside the door, I bet you would be pretty appalled. Now imagine a dead kid there too (they bring their families with them too, you know). If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you don't do it by letting the illegal workers die outside an emergency room because they got injured picking your crops. You do it by putting the American farmer or construction company owner who hired him in the first place in handcuffs and telling the other farmers/construction company owners that if they keep hiring illegals, they're next.
Oh, PLEASE tell me you have the option to kill him!
Well, in a sense, he's right. Since "free will" is a construct of language that we all *basically* agree on, that itself gives it about as much meaning as we are capable of. Just the fact that we believe we have options implies that we do from our own limited perspective, otherwise the possibility that we could even consider this to be the case would be insanity. Now our perspective is limited, granted, but if you're going to just throw it out completely because of that limitation, then you would also have to throw out all other academic knowledge with it (since it's *ALL* done by humans, and limited by our own shortcomings). Asking if there is an *objective* "free will," like asking if there is an objective "God," is absolutely pointless. We're humans--we CAN'T be objective.
As for me, I chose the bots because Kant's humor is just so dry next to Crow and Tom.
I'll have you know I turned 14 last month, buddy!
It's a shame this game has no coop or multiplayer. I know a lot of you will say there is nothing wrong with a well-done single player game, and I agree with you in spirit. But, in practice, a part of me looks at a game like this in 2009 and can't help but see it as, well...old-fashioned.
It seems that this would have been the ideal game for coop, and whatever Bioware's justification for not including it, I can't help but wonder if it wasn't just laziness or "We'll just do it the way we've always done it" obstinance. Bioware one proposed foray into multiplayer gaming seems to be Star Wars: The Old Republic, and even that (with it being PC only) seems kind of old-fashioned (made even more bizarre by the fact that KOTOR I and II made most of their sales on a console). I give them kudos for what they've done with single player games in the past, but I'm not confident they're adapting well to an online future (DLC aside).
Firefox is great. But it's all the amazing addons that make it really shine. So kudos to Mozilla, but even more kudos to all the hard-working code monkeys who gave us addons like NoScript, Adblock, and (appropriate for this forum) Slashdotter.
Don't fall for it, Mozilla! The cake is a lie!
The thing that worries me (and that I have *yet* to hear addressed in any discussion of the issue) is "What happens if they prohibit insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing condition, but fail to set any premium limits for said coverage?" In other words, what's to stop an insurance company from telling a cancer patient, "Okay, we're not denying you coverage, but your premiums will be $1 million a month"? With no limits and no public option, someone in that position could well end up having to pay the fines, and they STILL wouldn't have coverage (talk about getting kicked when you're down!).