Messages

Linux is certainly less bloated and more capable than Windows.  However, once you attempt to add on ease-of-use GUIs, plug-ins, emulators, et al, it approaches the same bloat as XP.  It's certainly more secure.

Macs are more secure, partially because of the lack of hacker/virus-writer interest, but also because of the basis of its user setup.  Vista will partially remedy this with its removal of a reliance upon admin/root rights for general use, but it will likely be a PITA for system tweakers.

My beef with Macs more revolves around how dumbed-down it all is.  The OS is easy as hell to use, but trying to customize system settings can be a bitch unless you resort to console commands.  Things I should be able to do by default, I find I have to score some shareware/open-source bit of software to remedy.  Given the availability of free software for Macs, it usually ends up wasting hours of my time.  Of course, if I just played games, surfed, and did some multimedia stuff with it I'd probably appreciate the simplicity. 

As for power, by all Mac user accounts I should be impressed w/ the 2Ghz Intel Core Duo w/ 1.5GB 667mhz DDR I'm using, but it feels at most about half as fast as the home machine I've had for a year and a half (A64 3200+ @ 2.44ghz, 2GB @ ~446 DDR), and is definitely a hell of a lot slower with Adobe PS CS2 (loading, saving, filters).  I'd really like to spend more time with a non-iMac Core Duo for a better assessment.

I think people tend to see the more liberal segments of the US as being more devoutly liberal than they are.  In the San Francisco area of California, any time Hillary's name comes up as a potential candidate everyone maintains that it would be interesting, but that there's no way she would win, usually adding that they wouldn't vote for her either. 

There's too much negative association with the Clinton administration, depictions of her as an iron-fisted bitch, and generally ignoring her constituents when she's got a pet-issue.  She's also been associated with a good amount of censorship & morality -type proposals. 

While I'd love to see things shaken up with a female president, I'm afraid we're still a little too backwards to accomplish this yet.

Semi-related... if you're homebrew-capable already, there's one adventure GBA homebrew game I tried recently: The Last Seal.  The normal play graphics aren't bad but the up-close characters are pretty amateur-ish (not that it should bother any AGS fan). 

And I definitely dig the SCUMMVMDS, S&M on my DS-Lite... awesome.

Does God exist?
Is There a God?
Just feuling this even more. I'm not an out and out christian, the only reason I most likely have a belief in GOD is because it was drilled into me from tender age by my parents forcing me to church every sunday. So I'm not really on a side here.

This post seemed less inspired and more judgmental than most of the less reluctant Christians' replies had.  That's quite the assumption that nobody debating theology in the thread has any clue what they're talking about.  I also had it drilled into me from a young age (not quite the right term, since it was less forced than there simply being no alternative to the perceived truth), but somehow managed to make the leap outside of the mental box I'd been occupying.  I've got a definite anti-religious bias, particularly when it comes to Christianity, but I strive to at least understand the perspective of its believers and probably have at least some inkling having had significant exposure to it. 

The links had to be quoted in case anybody missed them before.  As I'd mentioned, it's the same trivial nonsense that's been used for self-justification since I was a wee lad.  Not only are they unfounded and occasionally ridiculous assertions (Must be a god because the planet's perfect for life and with any deviation of X life wouldn't be possible -- this totally ignores the obvious), but they also make no better argument for a divine creator than they do extra-terrestrial life, let alone being proof of a Christian Yahweh cum Jesus combo.

I'm quite certain that most posters here realize the idiocy of internet-based religious debate (or the same debate in any form, for that matter), but that doesn't stop it from being an interesting exercise that does prove to be a learning experience (even if only about semi-anonymous internet personalities), even if nobody's faith is shaken, renewed or inspired. 

I'm probably the wrong one to respond since I'm running contentedly w/ 2GB.  However,  if you are looking at upgrades, any real CPU upgrade will entail a RAM upgrade as well.  AMD's been cutting their prices for older chipsets, and you get get pretty decent performance for little money.  If I were to build a family machine that would run most modern games quite well and be pretty handy w/ graphics/video apps, I'd probably to an AMD socket 939 X2 4400+ w/ 1GB DDR & a 7900 GS gfx card (or if 3D gaming isn't a requirement, probably a low-end ATI AIW).

In any case, there's no point in upgrading the cpu on the board it's on, but another 512 MB RAM might iron things out. 

I'm with everyone else though, in suspecting you've got some spyware/virus or too many bloated applications.  A clean install would probably net you greater performance gains than dropping double the RAM in.   

(you just dropped in a reply, and I note there's no mention of Spybot or even AdAware in there . . . give Spybot a try if you haven't -> download link. Install, go through update/immunize steps and run a scan and see what it comes up with.  It won't catch legitimate software that's ultra-bloated (like some of Creative Labs helper apps or other supporting software), but does a good job overall)

The advice certainly seems less open-minded and more on the misogynistic side of things.  Been burnt much?

I wasn't going to reply since rmullen had stated that he'd said his 'peace' (sorry for the grammatical fun-poking).  However, it's my turn to virtually shake Vince's hand as I absolutely agree.  I am completely for anyone abiding by a religion that loves people as people, regardless of their faith, race, sexuality, etc., and wish rmullen all the best if this is the case. 

I don't want to divert the already-diverted thread any more, but I've had a difficult time convincing Christians to abide by a hate-the-sin/love-the-sinner message that Jesus preached. Between my parents & peers and living in the San Francisco area, the issue of homosexuality is one plagued by fear and hatred rather than simple compassion and understanding.  If I've come across my first Christian that attempts to abide by the doctrine I was taught that the religion was all about, then I'm certainly more open to an exchange of discourse than I was.

On the subject of faith, I disagree with your interpretation of faith.  The way I remember the verse is probably from the KJV, something along the lines of "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I interpret this to say that faith is independent of observable phenomena. (edit: Forgot to mention that faith is defined by belief without evidence by several dictionaries)

Can evidence support faith? Certainly.  However, I would argue the the test of profound faith is if one is capable of believing in something despite physical evidence to the contrary.  To believe something from the bible, even a simple statement like "God is love" isn't too impressive coming from a religious middle-class person who's heir to a trust fund.  If I heard the same statement from a homeless man dying from malnutrition, it would have far more impact.  Honestly, I'd probably thing he'd gone nuts more likely than hearing him out, but it would stick with me for the rest of my life. 

I agree in principle with your paragraph about discussions of faith, but the real reason there's no resolution is because nothing's been proven.  Even if one were to check your citations and references and see that they were attributed to established sources, there are glaring holes in this 'evidence'. 

Evidence is an iron-clad and powerful thing when it supports what you want it to. 

From my perspective, I'm wondering which of the following is more likely:

1) An omnipotent being informed a person about events that were to take place 200 years in the future.  As for the reason why, nobody can comprehend the mind of the omnipotent, but one could imagine that it was for purposes of establishing his omniscience as well as establishing this man as a person who spoke the truth.
--
2) Nearly any prophecy can come to pass in an infinite timespan. 
--
3) Prophecies have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.  An outcome of an event could be affected by known prophecy.  Additionally, knowing what was said, an event could be manipulated.  As for the name Cyrus, it's difficult to ascertain whether the name was common 2500 years ago.  One could easily imagine, however, that the name became more common as enmity for Babylon grew and more people heard about the prophecy.  Additionally, any individual could choose to be called by that name, particularly since record-keeping wasn't as thorough as it tends to be now.  It wasn't uncommon for people to change their names as well; according to the Bible, God renaming people (or people renaming themselves or others) wasn't infrequent.  The reason might be prior to execution of some great work, after a life-changing event, or to give people a certain idea when hearing that name. 

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody saw a method to lead an army to topple Babylon.  Wouldn't it be a strong psychological tactic to take the name of a prophesied conquerer? 
--
4) The records are false.  Whether through mistranslation, misinterpretation or human error, there could easily have been mistakes made.  Say, for instance, the date referred to for the publication of Isaiah's words was incorrect?  Having heard about the event, one imagines that it would be a simple thing to have told others about it , especially since news didn't travel as quickly in those days - he could've heard about events and counted upon people not having heard it yet. 

I admit, that last bit sounds like stretching the evidence to wrap around my beliefs.  Back to the beginning of this point - the bible was translated and distributed much more recently than the events you describe.  It's a simple trick to claim that a past event was prophesied before it happened.  I could claim now to have had a dream when I was 8 that I would be married by the age of 19.  It's still faith that would allow people to believe me, not evidence. 
----

I'm not specifically refuting your faith, just what you interpret it to mean.  It's your faith that allows you to believe my first point about the facts presented rather than being skeptical and reverting to one of the latter.  It's your faith that allows you to see bridges across gaps when others can't see the way from point a to point b.  It's a credit to faith that this is the case; it doesn't necessarily have to be supported by tangible evidence.

I believe, however, that the problem with religious discussion lies with both parties.  The opposing side behaves in much the way you describe, however you ignore the behavior of those defending it. People of faith have embraced evidence that supports their conclusions and rejected that which contradicts it.  Archaeologists are praised when supporting faith by their determination of dates, but rejected outright when claiming that something is too old (or young) to support the Bible's claims. 

If one were to believe that this prophecy actually occurred as your evidence claims, they still wouldn't necessarily have to draw the same conclusion.  This is equally specific support for Judaism or Islam, and generic support for belief in the supernatural.  We could attribute these events to the strength of faith in a metaphysical world, or as evidence in latent psychic abilities. 

It is both its most admirable quality as well as its most infuriating that faith is blind.

sometimes things are repeated often because they are implicitly true.  You can cheapen the statement by calling it cliche, but i am afraid you cannot refute the logic.  Besides, being skeptical about the truth or refusing to believe it doesn't in any way diminish its truthfulness.  Its a loosing battle, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Perhaps you read a more condescending tone into that than was intended.  I can only speak for myself, but it would be far more interesting to hear about personal experiences or reasons why you (personally) believe what you do.  Not only would it make for more diverse discourse, but we'd actually learn a little bit about how someone else thinks instead of hearing over and over how Pascal or Dawkins put things.

In any case, the phrases are cliche because they've been used to the extent that they've lost their original purpose.  Now, I continually hear references to 'Free will' without any thought behind them as to what free will consists of.  Pascal's Wager is illogical from a perspective other than a believer's, its only use is in supporting a supposition that one already believes. 

Not to beat a dead horse (another over-used phrase, many apologies), but the 'Free will' you mention consists of a choice to do one thing or another.  However, if we choose the other, then we're tortured infernally.  Take this scenario: an armed man (analogy for omnipotence) threatens a couple, saying the husband must kill his wife or they both die.  The man commits the crime.  Is he guilty of murder? Yes.  Was it of his own free will? That's at least posing a subject for debate rather than just re-stating things and wishing they were true.

It's been stated by both the religious and non that religion is a matter of faith - not intellect.  Reason and logic don't really come into play.  If there were a logical, factual argument as to why people should believe in God X, it sort of negates the need for faith, doesn't it? 

As far as discussion goes, someone could just as readily state that a religious person is merely insane, but while there've been some statements that are obviously anti-religious, none have been as patronizingly dismissive as I've heard from the other camp on multiple occasions.  I was raised in the Christian church, went to a Christian school and heard all of the same unjustified arguments and axioms then as I do now.  They still mean as much.

(Edited for punctuation:P)

Don't you think it takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him?

I would highly recommend tossing out the pamphlet of cliched witnessing phrases.  It's a crutch you're better off without and makes the conversation far more interesting for those opposing your position.  To be specific, that particular phrase along with the simplified explanation of free will and humanity's evils seem to be used more than speaking from your personal faith and telling people about the parts that really matter to you. 

If you have a genuine relationship with your deity, then maybe you should ask it what to say instead of relying upon human intellect (as in reciting Pascal's Wager). I, for one, would fine the discussion more rewarding having learned more about a person and his experiences than hearing the SOS.

I was reading through expecting to rapidly dash off a reply telling you to . . . do exactly what I read later you did.  It's nice that you're concerned for her current well being post-whateverthehellthiswas, but it seems best for her, you, and the kids.  Try not to regret it taking as long as it did, after all you're only human and it can take awhile for the left brain to kick in.  I speak from a comparatively hyperbolic relationship experience.  Thankfully, you're smarter than I was.

I don't see why people who are knowledgeable when it comes to hardware are questioning the lack of HD.  Aside from the HDMI interfacing, you're also talking about pushing a lot more polygons with higher-res textures in order to make it look acceptable on hi-def TVs.  If they increased the hardware capabilities (CPU, RAM, Video speed/VRAM, HDD size/speed) to that extent it'd jack up the price approaching 360/PS3 prices. 

HD doesn't have a large share of the market, and any PC monitor aside from the most recent (and boasting support, of course) lacks HDMI. 

Yeah, the Wii is a souped-up GC with a gimmicky interface, and Nintendo's planning to make a hardware profit (unlike the 360 that launched at a loss and the PS3 that'll take a loss until the hardware's refined).  I'll also be acquiring a Wii at some point because, hell, it just looks like more fun (especially +alcohol & "casual" female gamers). The most time I spent on the 360 the guys have at work was with Geometry Wars... GRAW was fun, but I enjoyed Halo 1 DMs more. Given that Geometry Wars has a pretty good Mac/PC clone, I guess I saved $400 or whatever.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/TheYak/pluto.png

Next: "The Drink You Can Trust (TM)"

True, but 'tis a rare beast of which you speak.  All too rare in the US, at least.

Are all people reluctant in that way?

Anyway.. as much as it's a pet-peeve of mine when people hyper-analyze things while completely skewing their dissection to reflect their personal beliefs, I don't think it's such a bad educational experience. 

I'd rather hear the refutations in class and read the supporting arguments for myself.  Too many evolutionary teachers just present everything as a given and neglect supporting arguments and evidence.  Granted, there's not supposed to be a religious twist to science class, but many secular teachers seem to be as anti-religious as they are pro-scientific. 

I've yet to run across BCE in common usage, but I sneer a little when I see that as well.  Just because we're now acknowledging that not everybody is necessarily Christian, does that mean we have to instantly remove every instance of Christianity's influence?  If our current year is based upon a certain person, why try and pretend that we all banded together and some point and agreed that it was a wonderful day to start year zero? 

In any case, while I disagree with the motivation of your teacher, the subject matter should be enlightening no matter which side of the fence you're on.  Just remember that if you really want to learn something you always have to study on your own.  Teachers just aren't that talented.  If you just want to pass, stop complaining and memorize whatever BS comes your way.

Time, travelling with monkeys



Next: Superman's less well-known weakness.

Or clean up the image and vectorize it if you're just looking to resize without degradation.  It may be time-consuming, but so is looking for fonts with just the right angles and curves.  You could also convert this to a TTF after it's done.

(Quick & dirty example:)

What's your setup like?  At least with my ISP, they're dynamic IP only unless I go with a "professional" account.  With a router you can assign your PC a set IP, but it'll be based upon the gateway set by the router.  I imagine this is for serving web pages or something?  It can be set up as a web-server based on the router-pc connection, but you tend to have to open ports on the router for internet-in traffic leading to potential security problems (unless they're correctly addressed).  All-in-all, the preferred option seems to be getting on a static IP with your ISP (usually costs a little more). 

I haven't gotten enough time (or off my ass in other words) to make a game, but this idea's making me drool at the idea again . . . though I've got a more cynical/cheesy idea in mind, something along the lines of Robert Downey Jr. in the Singing Detective or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.

No doubt you could grab a few sales of "BJ in a box!", particularly if the phrase was used without mentioning an adventure game. 

They'd make nice purchases, collectables, or AGS prizes.   Just be wary of distributing if you've got the T-is-for-teenager logo on there, the ESRB can be a real bastard with that.