Oh, and to cut off the "they won't cut prices! they'll just make more money!" responses, of course prices will come down. That's the way the free market works.
I don't know what country you just stepped off the boat from, but you'll soon learn that's not the way things work here.
If company A can sell their game for $50 instead of $60, and thereby grab market share from company B, who has to charge $60, then of course company A will lower their prices.
Here's a more likely scenario: Company A realizes they can sell their game for $60, the same as company B, while making extra money selling ad space in the game. End of story.
If you think the inclusion of ads is going to reduce the cost of games, I've got a cable channel package to sell you.
And who's a better role model for Earthlings, a self-made small-s superman with a more, shall we say, subjective perspective of morality, or a space alien with magical powers rocketed to earth from a dying planet whom we can never strive to be like, but who has an unwavering code of Judeao-Christian honor and corn-fed American Way ideals?
Uh, that's a rhetorical question, right? You're not implying that we should never aim for something we can never be like simply because it's unattainable, right? (not that being Lex Luthor is any less unattainable than being Superman, but that's beside the point)
Since you're dropping off, I assume it's because you're not interested in further critical examination of your beliefs.
That would be quite an incorrect assumption.
My apologies, but my ability to engage in any sort of prolonged discussion about theological issues with fellow believers was completely destroyed by years of dealing with ignorant and arrogant Christians in another message board. I simply cannot discuss issues with people who are not willing to accept the fact that certain beliefs they hold may be wrong. I remember when I was like that, and I can see how frustrating that must have been for others at the time.
"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"
This doesn't really affect anything that I've said previously; it simply a prophetic statement that points to the sacrifice Christ made for us.
"only after the fall were animals slain"
Simply an assumption since there is absolutely no evidence for this.
"If it's spiritual death you with which you are concerned, then why was it not sufficient for Jesus to die "spiritually?""
Probably to fulfill the prophecy you quoted earlier, which also made it possible for Christ to preach salvation to the dead as well.
Anyway, Slashdot is not really the place to have a rational discussion about high minded subjects. I won't be continuing this discussion any further. My original point was simply to show unbelievers that your original adamant claim that Christ and evolution were not compatible may not be correct, giving evidence to back up my claim. It was not so much for you (though I hope it has urged you to take a more critical view of your own beliefs) as it was for them.
What is the modern equivalent of these idolaters? Why, the biblical inerrantists. They have made themselves a graven image of God, not made of wood or of gold or marble but of words. They have defined their god so narrowly and restricted him within the ancient text, and cannot conceive of anything beyond the holy scripture. Thus these idolaters try to shout down anyone who dares examine the world itself for clues to the nature of the creation, and confine themselves to Genesis.
If I could mod this as Insightful I would. While I may not agree with you in spirit, I certainly agree with the point you are trying to make.
The Bible teaches that there was no death prior to the fall of man. Specifically taught in Genesis, and reinforced in the new testament was that sin entered the world through the actions of one man, and death came to the earth as a result.
I believe this "death" you are referring to is spiritual death, not physical death. Physical death was obviously a reality before The Fall, and it takes one simple example to prove it: Adam & Eve ate. Many counter this with the idea that plants are simply not alive. I don't really have anything to say about that.
Further support that I believe it was spiritual death, and not physical death, that was introduced with sin is in God's own words to his first fully human creations "Don't eat the fruit of this one tree, because the day you eat of it you will die". Adam & Eve did not die physically the day they disobeyed God. They died spiritually as their sin separated them from God. Satan even used this point to trick them into eating from the tree in the first place ("You won't really die, will you?"). This implies foreknowledge of what death was.
In fact, the original Hebrew actually says something to the effect of "in dying you will die" (literally the Hebrew construct being a duplication of the word "die"), implying a level of death that Adam & Eve were familiar with, but including another, more final death that they were unaware of (i.e. "everlasting death"). For all we know (and we don't know much) God told Adam that he would resurrect him should he physically die.
Now let us move on the the passage you were referencing directly. "When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." (Romans 5:12). While the immediate context (especially v 13) seems to imply this is speaking of physical death, continuing on to the rest of the chapter reveals to us the spiritual aspect of it (i.e. eternal life through Christ) is also present. It's a bit confusing here, but I propose that perhaps the death mentioned here is really spiritual, though spoken of in physical terms (since the two have been intricately linked up until Christ). Perhaps these people (i.e. everyone who died before Christ) were spiritually dead, but were later preached to by Christ (e.g.), with some finding forgiveness and eternal life after being dead? (cf Christ preaching to the dead between the time he died and rose again in 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6)
And, finally, let's look at what the ultimate payment for our sin was. It's pretty well known that God says the payment necessary for sinning is death. Contrary to what may be popular belief, I think this means spiritual death, not physical death. Everyone will physically die, whether they sin or not. But not everyone will experience spiritual death. Can an infant said to be a sinner? (Note: This is where religions like Catholicism insert bogus concepts like 'Original Sin', but what we inheirted from Adam was a sinful nature, not instant guilt) If Christ came to cleanse us from our sin, why, then, should we still be punished for it by physically dying? Some salvation. No, what we are saved from through Christ is spiritual death; separation from God. He promised we would be raised in new, spiritual bodies.
"But," you might say, " Jesus' payment for our sins was a physical death on the cross!". Was it? I'll leave you will this dying quote from Christ: "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?!"
Theologically speaking, since death could not have preceeded sin, and sin did not occur until the fall in the garden:
Evolution - which requires a constant cycle of life death and life - is not consistent with the problem of mankind, or the solution - Jesus Christ.
I believe the foundation of your argument is incorrect, which, therefore, leaves this conclusion incorrect as well. I don't believe evolution is in any way incompatible with Christ.
While this bill is a nice idea, it probably stands about as much chance of being honored as the Bill of Player's Rights (pdf link).
That aside I fully agree with putting more control in the hands of content creators. It just doesn't seem right that the middle-man -- the publisher -- has almost all the control (in games, music, etc.). The creators are far more important than the distributors, and should be respected as such.
Being a huge fan of Flatland, I bought Flatterland ("like Flatland, only moreso") when it came out in hardcover. It wasn't nearly as charming and as interesting as the original. The material is far heavier and the whole feminist rebellion theme (the main character is, as you might have guessed, female) is pretty played out in the twenty-first century. I had to force myself to finish it.
If you're a fan of Flatland, I'd recommend checking out Sphereland, instead. It follows more closely to the flavor of the original and is more entertaining to read.
Apparently there's also a Spaceland book, but I haven't heard much about it.
I also remember reading a short story in a periodical about ten years back (Scientific American?) that described A. Square's escape from the prison he was placed in that the end of Flatland.
The fight against DRM cannot be won. Visions of a future where media companies and other copyright holders kowtow to consumer demand and release all of their content in an unprotected format to be infinitely copied are ludicrous
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds very much like a vision of the past. Oddly enough, it's that past that made the media companies and copyright holders as rich as they are today.
Stereo manufacturers freakin' built stereos with double cassette decks for the sole purpose of tape duplication, yet the music industry grew. Friends swapped and copied tapes all the time, yet the music industry grew. People have been swapping high quality mp3s over the internet and BBSes for over a decade, yet the music industry grew.
DRM is 100% pointless. Hunting down copyright infringers and calling them thieves and murders is pointless. The music industry has thrived incredibly well in this environment for the decades. DRM and other anti-infringement tactics only serves to alienate customers.
Selling recorded music is a multi-million dollar industry, the owners of which surely don't want to just give up, just because technology has made them completely unnecessary.
"And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior."
In the video, we see that digital dogs haven't progressed much. Just like in Deus Ex, when a dog turns, it magically spins about it's center. I have a dog, she doesn't turn like that.
At $0.03 cents/hit, you'll want to aim for around 5 sec/hit to earn about $20/hr.
If it takes you more than 10 or 15 seconds from the instant you read the description for a hit to the instant you are available to read the description for the next hit after successfully completing the first one, it's not really worth your time (at least, IMHO).
Developers must do six very real things to make MMO games reach out to even more people:
rethink monthly fees
I believe monthly fees (or, at least, high fees like WoW's) are going to be the main stumbling block for the developing MMORPG market. If people are going to be paying for a game five times over in a single year, they're going to buy fewer games. Right now, I play WoW and it's the *only* thing I play because I want to get my money's worth out of it. Not many people will want to pay for three of four MMORPGs at $15/mo because the fees will simply be too high.
Unless monthly fees are drastically reduced to a reasonable level -- say, $2/month (especially if you have to drop $50 up front) -- there will simply be less of a market for more than a handful of MMORPGs. There are not 6 billion more people ready and waiting for new MMORPGs to hit the market.
Reasonable pricing models will ensure everyone gets a piece of the pie. Obscene pricing models will guarantee one or two major games will dominate the market. I don't know about you, but I would prefer more variety in my online gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
A person who is a true programmer in his soul doesn't ask himself "why". Oftentimes the sheer joy of creating something from nothing is enough.
I don't know what country you just stepped off the boat from, but you'll soon learn that's not the way things work here.
If company A can sell their game for $50 instead of $60, and thereby grab market share from company B, who has to charge $60, then of course company A will lower their prices.
Here's a more likely scenario: Company A realizes they can sell their game for $60, the same as company B, while making extra money selling ad space in the game. End of story.
If you think the inclusion of ads is going to reduce the cost of games, I've got a cable channel package to sell you.
I agree. We should only allow for-profit software (thus enabling war profiteering) for use in war. It's the American Way(tm), after all.
Uh, that's a rhetorical question, right? You're not implying that we should never aim for something we can never be like simply because it's unattainable, right? (not that being Lex Luthor is any less unattainable than being Superman, but that's beside the point)
"Muzak" is already well on its way to join the ranks of "thermos" and "zipper".
Your apology on behalf of others is graciously accepted, but I simply must leave the discussion at that.
That would be quite an incorrect assumption.
My apologies, but my ability to engage in any sort of prolonged discussion about theological issues with fellow believers was completely destroyed by years of dealing with ignorant and arrogant Christians in another message board. I simply cannot discuss issues with people who are not willing to accept the fact that certain beliefs they hold may be wrong. I remember when I was like that, and I can see how frustrating that must have been for others at the time.
This doesn't really affect anything that I've said previously; it simply a prophetic statement that points to the sacrifice Christ made for us.
"only after the fall were animals slain"
Simply an assumption since there is absolutely no evidence for this.
"If it's spiritual death you with which you are concerned, then why was it not sufficient for Jesus to die "spiritually?""
Probably to fulfill the prophecy you quoted earlier, which also made it possible for Christ to preach salvation to the dead as well.
Anyway, Slashdot is not really the place to have a rational discussion about high minded subjects. I won't be continuing this discussion any further. My original point was simply to show unbelievers that your original adamant claim that Christ and evolution were not compatible may not be correct, giving evidence to back up my claim. It was not so much for you (though I hope it has urged you to take a more critical view of your own beliefs) as it was for them.
Oh, sorry. Then I'll change my answer to 'The Illuminati', too.
If I could mod this as Insightful I would. While I may not agree with you in spirit, I certainly agree with the point you are trying to make.
I believe this "death" you are referring to is spiritual death, not physical death. Physical death was obviously a reality before The Fall, and it takes one simple example to prove it: Adam & Eve ate. Many counter this with the idea that plants are simply not alive. I don't really have anything to say about that.
Further support that I believe it was spiritual death, and not physical death, that was introduced with sin is in God's own words to his first fully human creations "Don't eat the fruit of this one tree, because the day you eat of it you will die". Adam & Eve did not die physically the day they disobeyed God. They died spiritually as their sin separated them from God. Satan even used this point to trick them into eating from the tree in the first place ("You won't really die, will you?"). This implies foreknowledge of what death was.
In fact, the original Hebrew actually says something to the effect of "in dying you will die" (literally the Hebrew construct being a duplication of the word "die"), implying a level of death that Adam & Eve were familiar with, but including another, more final death that they were unaware of (i.e. "everlasting death"). For all we know (and we don't know much) God told Adam that he would resurrect him should he physically die.
Now let us move on the the passage you were referencing directly. "When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." (Romans 5:12). While the immediate context (especially v 13) seems to imply this is speaking of physical death, continuing on to the rest of the chapter reveals to us the spiritual aspect of it (i.e. eternal life through Christ) is also present. It's a bit confusing here, but I propose that perhaps the death mentioned here is really spiritual, though spoken of in physical terms (since the two have been intricately linked up until Christ). Perhaps these people (i.e. everyone who died before Christ) were spiritually dead, but were later preached to by Christ (e.g.), with some finding forgiveness and eternal life after being dead? (cf Christ preaching to the dead between the time he died and rose again in 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6)
And, finally, let's look at what the ultimate payment for our sin was. It's pretty well known that God says the payment necessary for sinning is death. Contrary to what may be popular belief, I think this means spiritual death, not physical death. Everyone will physically die, whether they sin or not. But not everyone will experience spiritual death. Can an infant said to be a sinner? (Note: This is where religions like Catholicism insert bogus concepts like 'Original Sin', but what we inheirted from Adam was a sinful nature, not instant guilt) If Christ came to cleanse us from our sin, why, then, should we still be punished for it by physically dying? Some salvation. No, what we are saved from through Christ is spiritual death; separation from God. He promised we would be raised in new, spiritual bodies.
"But," you might say, " Jesus' payment for our sins was a physical death on the cross!". Was it? I'll leave you will this dying quote from Christ: "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?!"
Theologically speaking, since death could not have preceeded sin, and sin did not occur until the fall in the garden: Evolution - which requires a constant cycle of life death and life - is not consistent with the problem of mankind, or the solution - Jesus Christ.
I believe the foundation of your argument is incorrect, which, therefore, leaves this conclusion incorrect as well. I don't believe evolution is in any way incompatible with Christ.
I put forward that physical death preceeded s
The Jews.
Oh, absolutely. No one is saying they should not get anything back for their risk. I don't know where you're getting that from.
A reasonable % ROI is good enough (10% or 20% or whatever). My point is the people who create something should be the ones in charge of that creation.
That aside I fully agree with putting more control in the hands of content creators. It just doesn't seem right that the middle-man -- the publisher -- has almost all the control (in games, music, etc.). The creators are far more important than the distributors, and should be respected as such.
How ironic...
I hope the guy who owns the patent on that sues Sony into oblivion.
If you're a fan of Flatland, I'd recommend checking out Sphereland, instead. It follows more closely to the flavor of the original and is more entertaining to read.
Apparently there's also a Spaceland book, but I haven't heard much about it.
I also remember reading a short story in a periodical about ten years back (Scientific American?) that described A. Square's escape from the prison he was placed in that the end of Flatland.
You're planning on living forever?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds very much like a vision of the past. Oddly enough, it's that past that made the media companies and copyright holders as rich as they are today.
Stereo manufacturers freakin' built stereos with double cassette decks for the sole purpose of tape duplication, yet the music industry grew. Friends swapped and copied tapes all the time, yet the music industry grew. People have been swapping high quality mp3s over the internet and BBSes for over a decade, yet the music industry grew.
DRM is 100% pointless. Hunting down copyright infringers and calling them thieves and murders is pointless. The music industry has thrived incredibly well in this environment for the decades. DRM and other anti-infringement tactics only serves to alienate customers.
There. Fixed that for you. ;-)
"And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior."
My dog does that. What kind did you get?
If it takes you more than 10 or 15 seconds from the instant you read the description for a hit to the instant you are available to read the description for the next hit after successfully completing the first one, it's not really worth your time (at least, IMHO).
I believe monthly fees (or, at least, high fees like WoW's) are going to be the main stumbling block for the developing MMORPG market. If people are going to be paying for a game five times over in a single year, they're going to buy fewer games. Right now, I play WoW and it's the *only* thing I play because I want to get my money's worth out of it. Not many people will want to pay for three of four MMORPGs at $15/mo because the fees will simply be too high.
Unless monthly fees are drastically reduced to a reasonable level -- say, $2/month (especially if you have to drop $50 up front) -- there will simply be less of a market for more than a handful of MMORPGs. There are not 6 billion more people ready and waiting for new MMORPGs to hit the market.
Reasonable pricing models will ensure everyone gets a piece of the pie. Obscene pricing models will guarantee one or two major games will dominate the market. I don't know about you, but I would prefer more variety in my online gaming.