I think you'll find that the position lends itself to corruption.
Yet America does not try to fix the position, so that it becomes less corrupted... we live with it and pray for a person who isn't as corruptible as the last.
Which is precisely why the premise of this story is wrong. And if I developed games, why would I target the PC market with one really cool game that can only run if buyers spend $1000 to upgrade last year's octo-core 5.8 GHz 16 GB computer to this year's 32-core, 7.3 GHz 128 GB computer? I can make a butt ton of cash by targeting all consoles and PCs with a game that has the same gameplay but doesn't use the latest ray tracing graphics engine.
And does anyone really believe that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are thinking, "This is it... we have the best thing that could ever be"? All of them have plans for future hardware, whether they've announced them or not.
I'll look it up if you really care about it... I think it was on Slashdot a few months ago... and it's not the point I was trying to make and I don't have time now to look it up.
Anyway, the article postulated that the environment can change the genetics of some species (or perhaps most or all?) as we grow. I don't recall the specific examples, but say I have a female and two identical twin males in controlled conditions, such that one of the males gets sunlight for many hours every day during his life and the other male gets very little. The genes in each male may actually mutate over their lives to reflect those environmental conditions. Thus, when each male has an offspring with the female, the offspring may contain some of those different genes that mutated in each father over their lives.
The science, and fact, of evolution is long settled.
But it hasn't. I recently came across research that suggests that environmental conditions plays as much of a role in evolution as genetics (and no, I'm not talking about natural selection, I'm talking about environmental factors that actually change your DNA as you get older.)
Assuming that is correct, a fundamental basis of evolution is suspect. Perhaps nothing of significance has changed, but my point remains... to say that the fact of evolution is long settled is incorrect as it is "evolving" itself, and therefore any assumptions made from that "fact" could be in jeopardy.
I agree wholeheartedly. But why does that matter in a non-scientific discussion? In other words, if God is unfalsifiable, then why do people assume that evolution being true falsifies God? That's would be a direct contradiction.
Proving my point, precisely. I have a non-scientific opinion that disagrees with yours, and you resort to ad hominem. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you said, except your blatant attempt to undermine me as a scientist by assuming I'm stupid.
the insistence in a consensus of reality based upon decree rather than falsification and experimental confirmation was definitely the wrong path
Your point is taken, but I never said anything to the contrary. Just because I have a non-scientific opinion, doesn't mean that I want it to interfere with science and fact-finding. But where it doesn't interfere, I don't see a problem with it.
It is good to have your guard up in such cases, but if I rejected everything that made me uneasy, I'd reject a lot of scientific findings as well.
Here's how science works.
That's precisely how science works. But look at Slashdot for instance... I have basically postulated, "God could exist, and I believe he does." But instead of people agreeing or disagreeing, or simply not commenting, I'm flamed left-and-right with comments that say I have no evidence, and therefore I'm a liar, or part of the problem, or not a scientist.
It's not science, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. See what I'm getting at?
It's not that unfalsifiable ideas are incorrect, it's that they aren't science.
Agreed. My point is not that they are science... my point is that any people who claim to be scientists feel that anything outside of science is worthless. And more to my point, they seem to believe that science conflicts with all religion, which is simply not true.
This is a reasonable goal. But to take a falsifiable theorem and prove it, and then to suggest that some or all unfalsifiable theorems are thusly incorrect, is a fallacy. In other words, just because evolution is proven true, doesn't mean God is proven false.
It also doesn't mean that anyone who believes in God is an armchair scientist. There are many PhDs who believe in God... not because they ignore the truth, but that the truth doesn't conflict with their beliefs. And also, there are skilled people who are scientifically attempting to piece together those falsifiable parts of the Bible and other religions.
I just find it odd that nothing has been found in the Bible to suggest that God is falsifiable, or if there has been, that he is false. Yet many "scientists" know God does not exist just like they know the sun will rise. Why is that?
Yeah, I'm well aware of that reference... he said "Greek" and "medieval", which constrains the scientists to a small portion of western scholars in history. I would be surprised if the same holds true over all history for all cultures.
That is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. "I don't care what you say... blah blah blah I can't hear you." That's how it sounds to other people when you do that.
Plus WTF does killing scientists have to do with this?
Well, we don't kill scientists today very often, but they are often times denounced simply because their views don't quite coincide with what has become accepted in the community. How many good ideas get thrown aside simply because the good scientist was hammered down at a conference, or not accepted to a journal, or his funding was cut by the government?
Not where I was going. I'm thinking more about a recent article suggesting that evolution on different scales may be influenced by environment as much as genetics (and I mean literally influenced by environment... not a natural selection kind of thing). That's not chaos, it's a different theory from natural-selection evolution.
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
Obviously, I meant evolution as an explanation of prehistory. Few people deny the small steps that can be shown in a lab, but every few months we see research come out that challenges natural-selection evolution as we understand it as the sole explanation of our existence.
That's what I mean... it's like believing that the earth is flat, which was widely held by even scientists centuries ago. How fervent did some of those people defend that belief, based on assumed "facts"? Did people get killed over disagreement? What if historical evolution is incorrect, yet today's scientists have decided it is true and nothing will change their minds?
If this were you, then you would be just as bad as the people whose ideas you stand against.
Just my opinion, the problem is that no single person can juggle all the facts in the world in his or her head. So, everybody to some extent takes the word of others as truth. It's a fact of human nature, and I don't think it could be another way.
So, how many times have you or I just accepted something that has less credibility than Wikipedia, simply because the tests and research aren't worth the answer? And then, later on having forgotten the credibility of that fact, bundled it together with other facts or fictions and come to a conclusion that may be well reasoned, but nonetheless incorrect?
That's why it is unwise to simply accept big subjects with many parts, like evolution, as true and inerrant. You wind up believing work from a scientist who may or may not have exhaustively researched the work, combined with many others, and accepting it all without question since it sounds reasonable and either agrees with your assumptions, or disagrees with a belief you dislike.
True, but that's not really how prayer works anyway.
If I call you and ask you to get me a burger, and I get a burger, was it because of the phone call or because of your generosity? You could have said no, or you may have brought me a burger anyway since you know I like burgers. Or perhaps, I like burgers because you always bring them to me.
Most people I know say that UT3 is definitely playable (and I agree), but those "Facebook" games are the ones that seem to experience the most noticeable lag.
In OnLive, there is a tiny amount of input-to-screen lag, but there is no gamer-to-gamer lag (the type where you're shooting one guy but he's actually 3 feet ahead of where he seems to be). So games that normally experience no lag like World of Goo seem to now be affected by input-to-screen lag, but games like UT3 actually have a reduced element of gamer-to-gamer lag and can be more playable than on a console.
Network manipulation is a common "cheat" in the XBox world, particularly with a multiplayer FPS. It is difficult to actually prove that the network connection is manipulated, or if some part of the network suddenly slowed or changed due to other reasons (mom/dad/sister/cat just got on YouTube, for instance).
I don't think this case was about network manip, but it goes to show that changing bits and bytes is far from the only definition of "cheating".
So, what do you call these generic rectangle user interfaces containing buttons such as Close, Minimize, and Maximize, and a title bar, client area, and grips used to resize such generic rectangle UI? I have an idea of what I would call it, but according to you I would owe Microsoft money for the use of the word.
Only the copyright holder may bring suit over copyright claims.
IANAL, but I believe that means that if I contributed code to WinMTR, and these guys violated the GPL for all the code except that which I wrote, then I would have no legal claim. And thus, even if "derivative works" that are completely made of original code are violations of the GPL, nobody would have a legal claim against the violators.
Have you actually tried it? In my experience, it's much better than you would think.
Let's consider the obvious lag issue. Did you realize that it actually removes common multiplayer lag? You know, the kind where you shoot at a guy and he doesn't get hit because he had moved 300 pixels to the left. That doesn't exist in OnLive since all the processing is done on the same network (maybe even the same computer) as the other gamers. In this respect, OnLive performs much like a LAN or even local game.
I'm not trying to ignore the click-to-response lag. It exists. But it really is minuscule, to the point that most people I know can't tell much difference over running the game locally.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find that the position lends itself to corruption.
Yet America does not try to fix the position, so that it becomes less corrupted... we live with it and pray for a person who isn't as corruptible as the last.
So /. posts a story with content from the actual article, and you complain?
So harsh...
20 meg limit/9600 baud = 34 minutes 43 seconds
AT&T doesn't advertise this because claiming 34 minutes of contiguous service would be false advertising.
Which is precisely why the premise of this story is wrong. And if I developed games, why would I target the PC market with one really cool game that can only run if buyers spend $1000 to upgrade last year's octo-core 5.8 GHz 16 GB computer to this year's 32-core, 7.3 GHz 128 GB computer? I can make a butt ton of cash by targeting all consoles and PCs with a game that has the same gameplay but doesn't use the latest ray tracing graphics engine.
And does anyone really believe that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are thinking, "This is it... we have the best thing that could ever be"? All of them have plans for future hardware, whether they've announced them or not.
I'll look it up if you really care about it... I think it was on Slashdot a few months ago... and it's not the point I was trying to make and I don't have time now to look it up.
Anyway, the article postulated that the environment can change the genetics of some species (or perhaps most or all?) as we grow. I don't recall the specific examples, but say I have a female and two identical twin males in controlled conditions, such that one of the males gets sunlight for many hours every day during his life and the other male gets very little. The genes in each male may actually mutate over their lives to reflect those environmental conditions. Thus, when each male has an offspring with the female, the offspring may contain some of those different genes that mutated in each father over their lives.
The science, and fact, of evolution is long settled.
But it hasn't. I recently came across research that suggests that environmental conditions plays as much of a role in evolution as genetics (and no, I'm not talking about natural selection, I'm talking about environmental factors that actually change your DNA as you get older.)
Assuming that is correct, a fundamental basis of evolution is suspect. Perhaps nothing of significance has changed, but my point remains... to say that the fact of evolution is long settled is incorrect as it is "evolving" itself, and therefore any assumptions made from that "fact" could be in jeopardy.
That's what I'm getting at.
I agree wholeheartedly. But why does that matter in a non-scientific discussion? In other words, if God is unfalsifiable, then why do people assume that evolution being true falsifies God? That's would be a direct contradiction.
If you find all this big brain talk too confusing
Proving my point, precisely. I have a non-scientific opinion that disagrees with yours, and you resort to ad hominem. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you said, except your blatant attempt to undermine me as a scientist by assuming I'm stupid.
the insistence in a consensus of reality based upon decree rather than falsification and experimental confirmation was definitely the wrong path
Your point is taken, but I never said anything to the contrary. Just because I have a non-scientific opinion, doesn't mean that I want it to interfere with science and fact-finding. But where it doesn't interfere, I don't see a problem with it.
hallmark of a con job
It is good to have your guard up in such cases, but if I rejected everything that made me uneasy, I'd reject a lot of scientific findings as well.
Here's how science works.
That's precisely how science works. But look at Slashdot for instance... I have basically postulated, "God could exist, and I believe he does." But instead of people agreeing or disagreeing, or simply not commenting, I'm flamed left-and-right with comments that say I have no evidence, and therefore I'm a liar, or part of the problem, or not a scientist.
It's not science, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. See what I'm getting at?
It's not that unfalsifiable ideas are incorrect, it's that they aren't science.
Agreed. My point is not that they are science... my point is that any people who claim to be scientists feel that anything outside of science is worthless. And more to my point, they seem to believe that science conflicts with all religion, which is simply not true.
"falsifiable"
This is a reasonable goal. But to take a falsifiable theorem and prove it, and then to suggest that some or all unfalsifiable theorems are thusly incorrect, is a fallacy. In other words, just because evolution is proven true, doesn't mean God is proven false.
It also doesn't mean that anyone who believes in God is an armchair scientist. There are many PhDs who believe in God... not because they ignore the truth, but that the truth doesn't conflict with their beliefs. And also, there are skilled people who are scientifically attempting to piece together those falsifiable parts of the Bible and other religions.
I just find it odd that nothing has been found in the Bible to suggest that God is falsifiable, or if there has been, that he is false. Yet many "scientists" know God does not exist just like they know the sun will rise. Why is that?
Yeah, I'm well aware of that reference... he said "Greek" and "medieval", which constrains the scientists to a small portion of western scholars in history. I would be surprised if the same holds true over all history for all cultures.
Doesn't matter, it's still bunk.
That is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. "I don't care what you say... blah blah blah I can't hear you." That's how it sounds to other people when you do that.
Plus WTF does killing scientists have to do with this?
Well, we don't kill scientists today very often, but they are often times denounced simply because their views don't quite coincide with what has become accepted in the community. How many good ideas get thrown aside simply because the good scientist was hammered down at a conference, or not accepted to a journal, or his funding was cut by the government?
Not where I was going. I'm thinking more about a recent article suggesting that evolution on different scales may be influenced by environment as much as genetics (and I mean literally influenced by environment... not a natural selection kind of thing). That's not chaos, it's a different theory from natural-selection evolution.
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
Obviously, I meant evolution as an explanation of prehistory. Few people deny the small steps that can be shown in a lab, but every few months we see research come out that challenges natural-selection evolution as we understand it as the sole explanation of our existence.
That's what I mean... it's like believing that the earth is flat, which was widely held by even scientists centuries ago. How fervent did some of those people defend that belief, based on assumed "facts"? Did people get killed over disagreement? What if historical evolution is incorrect, yet today's scientists have decided it is true and nothing will change their minds?
If this were you, then you would be just as bad as the people whose ideas you stand against.
See my reply to the GP below. Then please tell me, why do you believe in evolution?
It's just a question... not expressing my opinion one way or another, but you are calling out evolution-deniers, so I'm calling you out.
Just my opinion, the problem is that no single person can juggle all the facts in the world in his or her head. So, everybody to some extent takes the word of others as truth. It's a fact of human nature, and I don't think it could be another way.
So, how many times have you or I just accepted something that has less credibility than Wikipedia, simply because the tests and research aren't worth the answer? And then, later on having forgotten the credibility of that fact, bundled it together with other facts or fictions and come to a conclusion that may be well reasoned, but nonetheless incorrect?
That's why it is unwise to simply accept big subjects with many parts, like evolution, as true and inerrant. You wind up believing work from a scientist who may or may not have exhaustively researched the work, combined with many others, and accepting it all without question since it sounds reasonable and either agrees with your assumptions, or disagrees with a belief you dislike.
Still doesn't mean your prayer caused it.
True, but that's not really how prayer works anyway.
If I call you and ask you to get me a burger, and I get a burger, was it because of the phone call or because of your generosity? You could have said no, or you may have brought me a burger anyway since you know I like burgers. Or perhaps, I like burgers because you always bring them to me.
Most people I know say that UT3 is definitely playable (and I agree), but those "Facebook" games are the ones that seem to experience the most noticeable lag.
In OnLive, there is a tiny amount of input-to-screen lag, but there is no gamer-to-gamer lag (the type where you're shooting one guy but he's actually 3 feet ahead of where he seems to be). So games that normally experience no lag like World of Goo seem to now be affected by input-to-screen lag, but games like UT3 actually have a reduced element of gamer-to-gamer lag and can be more playable than on a console.
Network manipulation is a common "cheat" in the XBox world, particularly with a multiplayer FPS. It is difficult to actually prove that the network connection is manipulated, or if some part of the network suddenly slowed or changed due to other reasons (mom/dad/sister/cat just got on YouTube, for instance).
I don't think this case was about network manip, but it goes to show that changing bits and bytes is far from the only definition of "cheating".
PLEASE erase this post before someone from Hollywood reads it. PLEASE.
Actually, that suggestion is probably better than anything they will actually do.
So, what do you call these generic rectangle user interfaces containing buttons such as Close, Minimize, and Maximize, and a title bar, client area, and grips used to resize such generic rectangle UI? I have an idea of what I would call it, but according to you I would owe Microsoft money for the use of the word.
Only the copyright holder may bring suit over copyright claims.
IANAL, but I believe that means that if I contributed code to WinMTR, and these guys violated the GPL for all the code except that which I wrote, then I would have no legal claim. And thus, even if "derivative works" that are completely made of original code are violations of the GPL, nobody would have a legal claim against the violators.
Have you actually tried it? In my experience, it's much better than you would think.
Let's consider the obvious lag issue. Did you realize that it actually removes common multiplayer lag? You know, the kind where you shoot at a guy and he doesn't get hit because he had moved 300 pixels to the left. That doesn't exist in OnLive since all the processing is done on the same network (maybe even the same computer) as the other gamers. In this respect, OnLive performs much like a LAN or even local game.
I'm not trying to ignore the click-to-response lag. It exists. But it really is minuscule, to the point that most people I know can't tell much difference over running the game locally.