| 2802 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Before we begin, Check this out. You might also want to look at this and this. I recently had a revelation about where the entire computing industry is going. Because of this revelation, I now see that our little tribal rivalries over PCs vs. consoles or Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux, just aren't going to mean a damn thing within the next couple of years. You see, it's all going on the web. It's all going subscription, item-shop and advertising based. You will no longer pay for games. You will pay only for access. I used to laugh at this idea. But now I understand that there are many cross platform solutions for delivering games over the web. Computers are fast enough now that you can make Nintendo 64 level 3D graphics with just the Flash player. Unity runs on Windows and Mac, although not on Linux but that's really just a matter of time. And there's even a way that the Blender Game Engine can be turned into a Firefox plugin that will run BGE files on any platform. Hell, even Java has some good stuff to offer developers, as anyone who has played Minecraft or Runescape knows. We already save emails and documents on the cloud, why not save games too? consoles and PCs will give way to cheap, stateless net devices. Cell phone companies will up their offerings of broadband internet over 3G connections while lowering the price. And only a small number of us will have anything even remotely resembling the computers of today to play emulators on. I'm thinking that the future looks a little like OpenPandora without Linux. Of course you'll cable box will probably have some kind of web front end so you can play games on your HDTV.... |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
No, I dismiss anyone who reveals themselves as a troll. That would be you, among others.
Had to trim that a bit, it's gettin' kinda long. At no point in this entire discussion have I insulted you. I have drawn conclusions based on words and definitions that you provided. You could have simply said "yes, that is what I think" or "No what I meant was..." Instead, you have resorted to name calling and dismissal. You don't want to admit that you basically proved my point, but you don't seem to have any way out of what you've already said. And this little after discussion that we're having right now just further demonstrates your unwillingness to either concede or clarify. I will not let you distract attention from the issue here. Either admit that you meant exactly what you wrote, or restate with absolute clarity.
I never claimed you insulted me. There's that reading comprehension issue you seem to have, Jimmy. You appear to have the comprehension problem here since this was meant to lampshade the fact that you repeatedly call me a childish troll when I have made no attempt to offend you. I have claimed you are trolling, which you are, and thus, you are not worth having an adult discussion with about the meanings of words. Provide examples of my trolling then. You declaring this a troll thread does not make it so. provide evidence. I am dismissing you and calling you names based solely on the childish behavior you have exhibited <example needed here> in this thread. I should have known better, it was my fault -- you pretty much revealed what you are in the first post. Oh well, live and learn. Again, you are still trying to evade the issue by ad hominem attack. You aren't even attempting to back up these attacks, you're just throwing them out there and expecting us to blindly accept them. However I will be happy to clarify when a fellow adult wishes to enter into the conversation. In that you have revealed yourself, you shall be dismissed for the reasons previously stated. You have already clarified yourself and you know this. Yelling "troll" and hoping that everyone looks the other way is neither effective nor adult.
|
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
So you plan on simply dismissing anyone that doesn't play along with your internal definitions rather than the plain definitions that you posted here? I will not be dismissed and I will continue this until you either offer some other interpretation of your statements or give up. You are correct that there is nothing vague about what you have said. You see government as "evil." You can call it a necessary evil if you want to, but you are hostile toward government, any government. I've read enough of your posts that I realize that you aren't technically an anarchist, since anarchy doesn't believe in property rights, but in a very literal sense you are an anarchist. You oppose any and all rule. That would also include rule by the people. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I have read exactly what you have written by the exact definitions of the word you used. Perhaps it is your own understanding of your own rhetoric that is lacking.
No, I dismiss anyone who reveals themselves as a troll. That would be you, among others.
Had to trim that a bit, it's gettin' kinda long. At no point in this entire discussion have I insulted you. I have drawn conclusions based on words and definitions that you provided. You could have simply said "yes, that is what I think" or "No what I meant was..." Instead, you have resorted to name calling and dismissal. You don't want to admit that you basically proved my point, but you don't seem to have any way out of what you've already said. And this little after discussion that we're having right now just further demonstrates your unwillingness to either concede or clarify. I will not let you distract attention from the issue here. Either admit that you meant exactly what you wrote, or restate with absolute clarity. |
|
|
The MMO community would have even more reason to hate it since it would threaten the dominance of their PC elitist epeens. |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
I was going to ask you what you consider physical force, but I see that you just declared yourself an anarchist. GG
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh? I never said anything about what I believe in. We are still in the definition of terms. However, I suspected you are and were simply trolling in this thread, you merely just declared yourself a troll.
Highlighted in red. You believe that government is incompatible with liberty. By this logic, there can be no liberty with government. Next set of question: What's the difference between liberty and freedom? Isn't freedom the natural state since we always have the ability to ignore, or accept, the consequences of our actions and do as we please?
Again your reading comprehension is VERY lacking -- or perhaps your mind and imagination are. There are several other conclusions to draw from what I said, and the place I was leading you is one of those several. Either way, I usually love a good semantic discussion -- but not with children or trolls. Maybe we'll try and sit you at the grown-up table next Thanksgiving. Take care, I'll know better next time now that you have shown what you are.
You are trying to imply vaguness where there is none. If there were any other interpretations of your words you would have offered them in defense. Being trapped by plain speach however, you are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks. This is why political language has evolved to this state. To say what you mean is to admit to the atrocious. The fact that you are not comfortable with what you said displays that the meaning of the rhetoric your beliefs are based on is highly concealed even from yourself. But please, continue to kick and scream. It only helps to erode your position further.
If you noticed I was happy to answer zchmrkenhoff , who actually was going in the direction i was gooing in, and showed greater understanding of the issues and the words. There was nothing vague about my words, the only problem was with your reading comprehension. I'm not kicking, I'm not screaming (more problems with your reading comprehension skills, I imagine). I merely realized you are an immature troll. If an adult wishes to discuss this further, I will. You however are not worth responding to, except as an object of mockery since that is all you are here for -- as you stated previously. However I do assume full responsibility for giving youthe benefit of the doubt which ended up just feeding you, the troll.
So you plan on simply dismissing anyone that doesn't play along with your internal definitions rather than the plain definitions that you posted here? I will not be dismissed and I will continue this until you either offer some other interpretation of your statements or give up. You are correct that there is nothing vague about what you have said. You see government as "evil." You can call it a necessary evil if you want to, but you are hostile toward government, any government. I've read enough of your posts that I realize that you aren't technically an anarchist, since anarchy doesn't believe in property rights, but in a very literal sense you are an anarchist. You oppose any and all rule. That would also include rule by the people. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I have read exactly what you have written by the exact definitions of the word you used. Perhaps it is your own understanding of your own rhetoric that is lacking. |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Use or threat of physical force. Every government action is coercive in nature, because all laws are ultimately backed up by force.
I was going to ask you what you consider physical force, but I see that you just declared yourself an anarchist. GG
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh? I never said anything about what I believe in. We are still in the definition of terms. However, I suspected you are and were simply trolling in this thread, you merely just declared yourself a troll.
Highlighted in red. You believe that government is incompatible with liberty. By this logic, there can be no liberty with government. Next set of question: What's the difference between liberty and freedom? Isn't freedom the natural state since we always have the ability to ignore, or accept, the consequences of our actions and do as we please?
Again your reading comprehension is VERY lacking -- or perhaps your mind and imagination are. There are several other conclusions to draw from what I said, and the place I was leading you is one of those several. Either way, I usually love a good semantic discussion -- but not with children or trolls. Maybe we'll try and sit you at the grown-up table next Thanksgiving. Take care, I'll know better next time now that you have shown what you are.
You are trying to imply vaguness where there is none. If there were any other interpretations of your words you would have offered them in defense. Being trapped by plain speach however, you are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks. This is why political language has evolved to this state. To say what you mean is to admit to the atrocious. The fact that you are not comfortable with what you said displays that the meaning of the rhetoric your beliefs are based on is highly concealed even from yourself. But please, continue to kick and scream. It only helps to erode your position further. |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
What do you consider "coercion?"
Use or threat of physical force. Every government action is coercive in nature, because all laws are ultimately backed up by force.
I was going to ask you what you consider physical force, but I see that you just declared yourself an anarchist. GG
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh? I never said anything about what I believe in. We are still in the definition of terms. However, I suspected you are and were simply trolling in this thread, you merely just declared yourself a troll.
Highlighted in red. You believe that government is incompatible with liberty. By this logic, there can be no liberty with government. Next set of question: What's the difference between liberty and freedom? Isn't freedom the natural state since we always have the ability to ignore, or accept, the consequences of our actions and do as we please? |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Sure. In terms of political liberty, which is what I usually mean here on the religion and politics forum, it is lack of government coercion.
What do you consider "coercion?"
Use or threat of physical force. Every government action is coercive in nature, because all laws are ultimately backed up by force.
I was going to ask you what you consider physical force, but I see that you just declared yourself an anarchist. GG |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Okay, so could you please give us your own definition of liberty? Don't cop out and post the dictionary definition. Give us what liberty means to you. And remember, this is for posterity so please be as clear and concise as possible.
Sure. In terms of political liberty, which is what I usually mean here on the religion and politics forum, it is lack of government coercion.
What do you consider "coercion?" |
|
Originally posted by Kalvasflamm
And that brings up another point. The PC is only really good at certain types of games. I cut teeth on arcade games because my family was too poor for either a micro computer or an Atari 2600 (yeah, I'm old). So I'm more into arcade style games, which are getting hard to find even on consoles. Back in my day, the only computer that could even come close to matching the raw speed of consoles was the Commodore 64. It wasn't until about 1990 that the PC was able to actually perform to the level of the NES. It took two more years before the PC was able to surpass the speed of consoles. And then the PC gaming old guard threw fits of nerd rage because PC games were becoming more action oriented. Up to that point, the PC excelled at wargames, adventure games and bone dry flight sims. Today, those genres barely exist on the fringes of mainstream gaming. The problem with the PC as a gaming platform is that there are only a small number of genres that are well suited to it. To make matters worse, multiplayer is all but impossible on a PC without a network. Multiplayer on a single PC is simply not done. There is a solution to the PC as a gaming platform, but none of the PC elitists here are going to like it. Get more PC games to support this:
It's either that or start making PCs that support multiple monitors, keyboads and mice right out of the box and have games made for such expensive set ups. Then again, a typical home LAN has about 100 mps of bandwidth, so maybe we just need games that can stream from a home server into netbooks which seem to be everywhere nowadays. Screw it. PCs are gonna be replaced by projecting smartphones with Chrome OS in a few years anyway.... |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Actually, it's what you hear from we who PWN you with valid arguments, articles, examples from history, and so on.
Okay, so could you please give us your own definition of liberty? Don't cop out and post the dictionary definition. Give us what liberty means to you. And remember, this is for posterity so please be as clear and concise as possible. |
|
|
Oppertunity cost? Anyone? Yeah, yeah, the PC has the major e-peen hardware and can be set up as a DVR in your living room blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!! How many exclusive PC titles are there a year? Out of those titles, how many do you know will run well out of the box? Even if you fit the systems specs, there's no gaurentee that the damn thing will move faster than a slideshow on your machine due to one tiny software / hardware dependency that was overlooked. And don't even get me started aobut the hegemony of genres on the PC. All hail the holy trinity of FPS, RTS and MMORPG!!! Fighting games? nope. Sports games? Only if you mean manegement sims. Driving games? Only if you wanna spring a few grand on something like this. What about Platform games? Well... there's always Cave Story.... But the real kicker is that the games making the most waves in PC gaming don't require a top end rig. AI Wars, Torchlight, Trials 2, none of the really good games requires huge amounts of power or money. Hell, some of the best PC games, like the now stand alone game Prometheus, are completely free. You can see this as a plus if you want, but why should triple A developers make anything for a platform that has become the casual bargin bin of gaming? Why should you invest in a high end gaming rig when all the graphics intensive games are going to show up on consoles with a smoother frame rate anyway? Yeah, I still play games on my PC. Only now it's Linux box and the only games I play on it are old Neo Geo games and Nexiuz. |
|
|
Should high ranking government officials be allowed to buy and sell stock?
Religion & Politics « General Discussion 11/25/09 2:04:09 PM
Sounds like a dumb question until you really sit down and think about it. Corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying congress every day. Businesses don't spend money unless they think there will be a pay off later. What happens when a congressman is heavily vested in a company that's trying to influence legislation? Conflict of interest maybe? Yep. I know there are going to be people who say that the $250k + raises that we give to our elected officials is theirs and they should be able to do what they want with it. But we hired these people to put the public interest before their own. So should we allow the members of congress, the supreme court, etc. to own stock in corporations?
BTW, I just thought of another good question: Should politician have any say at all in their raises? Seems to me that the people of a given jurisdiction should decide whether or not a representatvie is deserving of a raise or not. |
|
|
Ten year old refuses to say the "Pledge of Allegiance"
Religion & Politics « General Discussion 11/25/09 11:45:42 AM
Originally posted by sepher
Unrelated. This one cited "liberty and justice for all", and same-sex couples not having the same rights as other couples.
Oops... my bad. The kid kind of has a point here to, but I think he went about it the wrong way. BTW, "my country right or wrong" is a lazy man's patriotism. |
|
|
Ever wonder why Africa just seems to always be a mess.
Religion & Politics « General Discussion 11/25/09 11:42:17 AM
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Sorry, gotta comment on this. The Hutu and Tutsi did not exsist before the Belgians colonized the area. The two "tribes" were completely fabricated by the Belgians, who did things like measure peoples noses and other nonsense in order to separate the native population. It's an old trick: Divide and Conquer. Keep the natives fighting eachother and you can do whatever you want. The sad thing is that everyone in Rowanda knew and understood the history of the situation and clung to it anyway. The Belgians no longer governed Rowanda. The Rowandan people knew that their "tribe" was just a white man's lie. There was no reason to continue perpetuating that lie. But they carried on and killed one another regardless. It's kind of depressing because it demonstates two things. 1) Even if there were truly just one race on the planet, that race would find some petty difference to use as an excuse to divide into different groups. 2) Racism has some social function that we don't completely understand. It fills a need that is so great that people will cling to even obvious and well documented fabrications of racial division. I realize that many of the divisions that occur in a society happen due to material conflicts. But I really think that something much deeper is going on. If we can figure out the need that racism fills and find some other means to fill that need, then we can eliminate racism. |
|
|
Ten year old refuses to say the "Pledge of Allegiance"
Religion & Politics « General Discussion 11/25/09 11:30:09 AM
This is old news and there's already a thread about it. If I remember correctly, the kid didn't object to the pledge so much as the use of the word "god" in it. And he does have a point. God did not make America. The founding fathers did. Also, the founding fathers were deists; The eighteenth century version of atheist. See also Thomas Paine.
|
|
Originally posted by SuperXero89
Did you get a kick out including a word in your post which you felt needed a dictionary definition? Truly inteligent individuals know how to get their point across using words that their target audience understands.
Actually I argued with myself about wether or not to put that link in there. I don't believe that my audience are complete retards, but I had to look long and hard for that word so I figured that I should probably provide a definition. Using that word makes the sentence more precise and better sounding than: "The American people feircely dislike and mistrust anything to do with culture or highter learning." See? The alternative was inaccurate and way too harsh. The thesarus is my friend.... most of the time anyway...
|
|
Originally posted by Sambula
Editing other people's words does not help anyone gain greater understanding. It is simply trolling and baiting. I had a feeling you didn't really want to discuss the issue. Sadly, you proved me right. Go back to the kids table. The adults are chatting here.
Awww, the big boy thinks he knows what he's saying. Shut it twerp. Your shit has been heard over and over and it's old.
got lost on your way to 4chan /b? |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Editing other people's words does not help anyone gain greater understanding. It is simply trolling and baiting. I had a feeling you didn't really want to discuss the issue. Sadly, you proved me right. Go back to the kids table. The adults are chatting here.
Revision is the process of making statements clearer. I revised what you said to more accurately reflect the meaning that I gathered from your statement. If I were to put it to a fine point, your statement would read: Everyone makes up their own definitions for terms and then assume others define those terms the same way. What you've basically done is completely detached meaning from common words. If everyone has their own, personal definition of what a given word means then the word has no meaning. What's more, if everyone operates under the assumption that their's is the only definition and make no attempt to solidify that definition for their listeners, then political debate, hell human communication as a whole, becomes nothing but meaningless noise. Seriously, take just about any political term and really analyze its meaning. You'll just end up chasing your tail. Political language, much like religious language, is not meant to be understood. It is meant to be parroted by the half-asleep.
|
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
I fixed it for you. Language is understanding. Political language is designed specifically to obscure understanding. Language is also thought. If you abandon concrete meaning, you disconnect language from thought and therefore abandon thought. |
|
