random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
Slow night huh?
-
-
And more importantly, what do you mean use?
-
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!
-
Don't worry Ros - with Wikipedia, everyone and his dog is a Sc.D!I'm far from an economic expert though - and I'm simply voicing my concerns. -
-
HA! Like that would prevent the debate from spilling over to other threads.
-
AvP2, with the little tidbits of info it threw in the path of the player, gave a pretty credible and consistent explanation of the role of the praetorian, which was tied to how new colonies are established. IIRC, praetorians are, according to AvP lore, nothing more and nothing less than young queens. I really need to replay that game.
I'm not against new alien varieties/hybrids/mutants a priori - AvP had a "predalien" which wasn't too bad. But watching Resurrection it's easy realize how little it takes to jump the shark.
edit: I was wrong, actually. Here's what's said about the praetorian in the game:
However most seem to believe that the Praetorian is formed as a last stage in a drone's life cycle. This theory states that there is a period that each drone who lives long enough goes through, which involves molting and growing to immense heights; while the process goes on however, it emits a strong pheromone that enrages the Hive, thereby making most inhabitants aggressive towards the outcast Drone, causing it to retreat to the outward world. Eventually it is said to return as a Praetorian, if it survived. -
Don't confuse "more prevalent" with "more natural". Again, it's the fact that most people are raised in social environments that makes the development of social skills something common. Empathy among them. Yes, it is just another social skill. Yes, it has its uses. But so does shaving, and is the need for a good shave "natural"?As for empathy it is more natural state than nonempathy. There's exceptions to everything of course. But you making behaviourist claim that empathy is merely outcome of upbringing is false.The ability to produce speech is an even better example. I'm not talking about learning a language, but the adaptation that is being able to produce any kind of speech. Feral children have been known to be unable to develop this ability fully, or at all in some cases. The child didn't need it in the environment she grew in, so she didn't develop it. Again, versatility.
Empathy is closely tied to morality? Where do you get this from? Empathy has been a trait present in humans for as long as we have been humans. Morality hasn't, and that's not even taking into consideration the plastic and malleable nature (heh) of morality.It is closely tied to morality and that is still great mystery for us.Nah. Morality is simply a framework that's set in place so that people can have something to operate by while living in community. It's the last line of defense against chaos.
Oh yeah, I'll give you that. Unfortunately, understanding of these things isn't exactly deep or abundant. I'm no exception.And simple explanations like that are very lacking.
Deteriorated? Mad? Not exactly. The human mind isn't "deteriorated" by lack of contact with other people. It simply adapts differently. Of course, everyone around us has a similar socialized mindset, so "feral" people are strange. That doesn't mean their minds are "deteriorated". But there's also the fact that humans pose the most complex problems for humans. Without the need to solve these problems in a constant basis, the mind loses that ability... just like astronauts can't walk on their own after a prolonged stay in space.How come that human mind is quickly deteoriated under circumstances when he lacks connection to other human beings, why loneliness drives so many people mad etc. Socialising is uppermost need of human psyche.And I don't accept that people go mad because of loneliness. It's not loneliness by itself that drives people mad. In some cases it's rejection. In others, self-loathing and a feeling of unfitness. But all have in common that they are being deprived of something their mind has grown accustomed to, essentially from birth.
No, for two reasons. The first is that living in society is an inherited custom. Leaving everything behind would just be too alien. Our mind, as it's been configured, isn't prepared for that. And the second reason is that it's still more efficient for everything to live in communities than alone. Perhaps in time this will change... there was a Foundation chapter by Asimov that explored that idea. But for the time being, there is a practical reason to live with others.If people were group animals only due to survival it would be easy to see modern man - with secured survival - leaving humans far behind. No pets or other such creatures could follow him to his destination either. He'd be utterly alone but with secured survival and very good quality of material aspects of life. He wouldn't need anything at all. Let's also suppose return to society would be harmful for his survival, say there's riots going on in the city and other anarchistic activities.
No. All you have is circumstantial evidence to support that. It may be easy for humans to develop the skills needed to live as social animals, but as I said before, it's also very easy to teach a dog how to fetch. That doesn't guarantee anything about "inbuilt" behaviors or anything of the sort.Man being social animal is "inbuilt" aspect of either our brain or mind, it doesn't matter much which one's. Point stays.
Yes, yes. You keep saying "X doesn't work" and "Z is false", but you never get around to explaining how or why. Arguments, please.However "Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well" this is just shaky and bad application of simplified darwinism in situation where it doesn't work.
*Ahem*Reminds me of theory that altruism is explained by showing off to neighbours and thereby getting more sex made by some "clever" evolutionary psychologist/biologist *facepalm*Arguments, not misrepresentations or association fallacies, please.
-
And even that is not enough.oh, i should add, maybe you should read 1984. hehe, you're free to think as you like, as long as you do as we say. man...
The irony is only apparent. The difference between the two postures is that one would wield power to trump individual freedoms in the name of "the greater good". The other doesn't close the door to acting for said greater good, but doesn't force people to do so. One would easily take the step from telling people how to behave to making people behave that way. The other wouldn't.If it's just 'telling' then you're back on the irony boat.And all it takes for that to happen is enough well-meaning but ill-informed people to come together. And out of the blue, you have a tyranny.
/lecture
-
HahahaSTALKER looks outdatedNo.
Enemies aren't affected by darkness though, which makes nighttime play kinda pointless.The above was taken during nighttime, using both a flashlight and night vision goggles. Still dark as hell. And scary.
Yeah, god rays though, are only in effect during sunrise. And they don't warrant the hit in FPS. Not for me at least.During sunrise, everything casts fantastic, realistic shadows. In the background there's an old powerline tower. It's not really visible, but it cast its shadows all over the vast plain. It looked awesome in motion.
The skies are some of the best textures in the game, alright. Character faces, not so good.During sunset, the sky lights up in beautiful colours. Then it goes dark. -
Sounds to me like you need an urologist.
-
They are still evil.Arguments have been that the companies will allow for continued use through other means if they do so and Wal-mart did this by telling their customers to burn their msic to a CD.And don't you forget that, young man!
-
"It's worth it"?sounds harsh but if that's only way to trigger caring for others in this day's world it is worth it *shrug*If you don't mind, I'd rather make that decision by myself. Moral superiority stops being so when you step over free will.
-
Sorry, what? Where did I say anything about all-out war? Where's the potential gain in that?That's Hobbesian line of thought with only social contract stopping the war of everyone against everyone - it doesn't have any basis and idea wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for era when Hobbes lived.However, as it should be very clear by now, his ideology was way too pessimistic and basic anthropology studies on stone age men shows it to be false.
And, as for not having any basis, that's pretty funny and it's something I see you do quite often ("string theory is crap, invisible hand is bs... etc"), while you refuse to explain why that is so. Human beings are not "like eagles" simply because we haven't adapted to the environment to become solitary predators. Our chances of survival are far greater if in groups, but that's that. And that's the sole reason why communities have perpetuated themselves - it's a practice that increases survivability, so it's adopted and passed on to future generations. Other than that, there aren't any apparent biological drives that make us "collective" beings, much less "hive"-like communities. Empathy may be brought up to support that, but empathy needs to be developed, trained if you will, and will not develop at all under certain circumstances. It's not any more inherent to the "nature" of mankind than a dog's ability to fetch. It's just a product of our versatility that allows us to work better in groups.
That's simply the environment counterbalancing man's base instincts to some degree. It's not two opposed parts of our nature headbutting.Man is both collectivistic and individualistic by needs (and in latter by sense of ego) and on which side one eventually leans depends on their culture, situation and their own free choices - though without sufficient abilities and knowledge third factor plays least role (but it still plays!). I'd say situation is the most important factor, although social psychologists might prefer culture.
Specify. Most "social" conducts can be explained by the simple fact that by working towards the good of others, the individual is benefitted as well. This is basic cooperation games theory. Has nothing to do with human "nature".Again, primary focus being culture and psyche.And I'd say they very well are proof as even hyperindividualized 20th and 21th century western world (I wonder when tide will turn, it'll happen eventually) has so many collectivistic traits in them (apart from the fact society even exist, heh) it is impossible to count. I think you too acknowledge this as otherwise you would't rant against current systems, yes?
No, that's sheepish behaviour. Under extreme stress, human beings tend to save their own skin. That's why people get trampled in fires, crushed to death in evacuations, etc. Instinct taking over, instinct overruling cultural, moral, and other superfluous (at the time) concerns.And in these cases collectivist nature of human thought showcases very, very clearly. For example there was this psychological experiment that showcased that under horrendous stress or panic situations (statistically) near all humans start to act like sheep.And that isn't very individualistic way of behaviour.
-
I agree with that. On the other hand, we are social animals by need.we are individualistic by nature.
Well. Distancing oneself from a group takes more than just saying so. If the so-called "third way" adherents still hold fast to certain socialist principles of management... how are they not socialists? Granted, there's shades of gray in everything, and I want to avoid making any sort of value judgement of one group or another. But... that's what they are.Calling the whole 'third way' thing socialism is kinda missing the point. The 'third way' was a way for social democrats to reinvent themselves in order to win elections. Third way has to my knowledge always been a free market with a heavy state theory prioritizing stuff like education and technology.I mean, I do realize why you guys (Taks and RN) call them socialist as they do miss the point of socialisms failure entirely. But calling them socialist when they're trying to distance themselves from it is missing the point more than those guys who are third way.
-
Ah. So, since it's a well-known phenomenon and it has a technical name, it's of course a sound and sensible practice - take lobotomy, for instance!It's not stupid at all - indeed in economics we call that concept rational ignorance - one should not waste his time on things unimportant to him. The vast majority of 'corporate mail' are various advertisements of their products, which is spam and I have no interest in that. Also, I don't subscribe to DRM-services like that, so for me it is an issue only insofar as it illustrates that even a huge company such as Walmart is ready to shut down its online activation servers. Frankly, I doubt I have ever missed anything important by not reading corporate spam-mail and I am not about to start reading it for the sake of monitoring if a company decides to shut down its online activation - much better to have stuff requiring no online activation.
But the next bit is the most interesting. You say that doesn't affect you, since you aren't subscribed to that kind of DRM-using services. And then you take that premise, and apply it to justify people who ARE subscribed NOT paying attention to official notices sent to them by their service provider. I'm not sure if that's circular logic... or simply nonsense.
Further, I have been subscribed to online services and made purchases online and I have yet to receive advertising mail that I couldn't choose not to receive.
The bottom line is you subscribe to a service, you establish a business relationship with a company. Disregard the notices they send you at your own risk.
edit: I suck.
-
As much respect as I have for Mr. Sarkozy... he's just another politician. And in that intervention in particular he's doing what politicians do best, lay blame without taking any and appealing to the masses. Exactly what does it mean to "inject morality into capitalism"? And how is he (are we) going to "reinvent" it? Don't fall for that load of hogwash.Again, I'm hopeful. It's becoming the dominant economic policy in Europe, and its starting to influence American politics. Sarkozy - leader of France - certainly seems to think something similar to it is the way of the future for EuropeAs some Klingon foreman put it, "our ships run on dilithium, not talk!"
You got me wrong. I'm talking about the "third way" (which I suspect is just a trendy name for good ol' social democracy), not the Internet."taking from the rich"? And why don't you think the Internet is a good idea?I'm talking about freedom of information, and global connectivity. Brazil has already taken this by the horns - it really aims to be a technology economy, like Israel, Ireland and Iceland.
Military power is usually strongly related to the strength of an economy. And in the case of superpowers, this is ALWAYS so.I simply called you for bring up America's military might out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion about economics. What was your purpose for doing that? -
Frankly, that's pretty stupid. You subscribe to a service and then categorise all mail coming from the provider of that service as spam and junk mail? And then, when you fail to heed an important notice with regards to the service you have subscribed to and the consequences take you by surprise... it's somehow THEIR fault?but to be honest I almost never check corporate mail, which I actually divert to a separate account that I use for online registration and the associated spam mail. I only check the account for retrieving passwords if I need to do so. I bet lots of people do the same.[...]but if you are like me, you create a special e-mail account for all the corporate/junk mail when asked to register and access it only to retrieve passwords, so I am guessing many people will miss that and simply lose access to their purchased music after a while.
Wow. Er, yeah. Customer's always right, eh buddy?
-
3:10 to Yuma - a solid 7/10. Kept me interested all the way through, which is enough. Bale's character is interesting and enigmatic, as opposed to Crowe's, which comes across somewhat corny... I think they tried too hard to make him neat.
Equilibrium. I rate this one a lol/10.
...lol.
-
You mean just like how you ignored this thread?
-
For some reason, I didn't see your post before. You must be moderated, or I'm especially dense today.
Yeah, but Australia isn't a superpower, nor aims to become one, right? I mean, it hasn't had to go against the biggest fish in the pond. That's what I meant by coming on top. You can be aligned in some way or another and practice different variations of a model. But can that model become THE standard? Is it capable of generating more wealth than the others, because ultimately that's what matters? If the "third way" is practiced just in a few places here and there, is it really a solution for everyone?*shrug* We do it here in Australia (have for almost 30 years). You might have noticed I find economic libertarianism laughable, and the accusations that I'm a socialist or a liberal equally laughable. Once you get past the ideology barrier and just go "what the heck, let's just pick the best bits and stop trying to lay blame", it gets a lot easier.
I'm skeptical with regards to that. As taks pointed out, the impressive economic growth in China is merely the expansion of free market where there was none before, and once they have reached the level of market saturation of modern economies, the growth will decrease. Not to mention the immense poverty and social inequality problems - problems it shares with India. Brazil is a different story though, but poverty and corruption aren't negligible there either.Now, I think the world is changing. A lot. The next 10 years will be amazing not just for America but the world - if we consider current trends, development in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, the Internet, and this new economic uncertainty in America.And also, the US may have crashed, but I'd say they aren't burning yet.
I'm sure it's a very marketable idea. After all, everyone likes the state giving them stuff and taking "from the rich". A popular idea is not necessarily a good idea, though.I think the Internet is a really empowering tool for the Third Way and social democracy in general, so if I had to predict, I'd say yes - it can become a prevalent ideology. -
Thank you. It may not have looked that way from the way I worded my first post, but I wasn't attempting to establish a lack of merit in the criticisms of regulation from your lack of formal support of the alternatives. I was taking each on separately.yes, i think it will. no, i cannot prove that. just because i cannot prove that, however, does not mean my criticisms of the regulated are incorrect. those criticisms stand on their own evidence, which we have in abundance. every ideal system, for that matter, cannot exist as long as humans have free will.Now, with that out of the way, why do you believe that a free market will come to equilibrium on its own? That's what I'm interested in the most.
That's still focusing on tangential issues - true or not, they aren't relevant to the discussion. Wouldn't it be easier if you simply disregarded that and focused on explaining your thoughts?no, krezack explicitly stated that i did not understand the strawman argument since there was no misrepresentation. you just conceded that you did indeed misrepresent me, and he made the same claim, so obviously my understanding of the strawman was not only correct, but proved.
I'm not sure I agree with the analysis that regulation does not work, a rather categorical statement considering that true financial model collapse has only been witnessed in the case of the USSR - the rest have ups and downs. I do agree that an excess in regulation and intervention decreases the "dynamism" and adaptive capability of the system, bogging it down. The point where this starts is up for debate. The problem with a system which may or may not achieve equilibrium if left to its own devices is that the risk of catastrophic failure is present... just like in the present model. And since it cannot be proven that a truly free market system is exempt from this risk (as per your own admission), only morality is left as support for it.um, yes. i stated opinion that the free market is the only way to go because no means of regulating has been shown to work. in other words, my comment is that regulation does not work (my analysis), and my solution is no regulation (opinion). i do agree that there are some that are necessary, such as fraud, which i have pointed out, but that's another story. i cannot prove that no regulation will be completely self-balancing, and in fact, i'm quite certain it won't work perfectly, as no system can (otherwise we'd be back to the idealism thing). the burden of proof is on those that advocate regulation, which has repeatedly proven to not work. the more regulation that there is, the less efficient, and less prosperous, the system is.[...]almost, but not quite. the alternatives do not collapse to a free market. most seem to (theoretically) collapse to anarchy, which has its own problems. the free market requires work, but not regulation. there needs to be some sort of enforcement behind free trade. for example, it is not free trade if the other guy refuses to pay, so there needs to be some guarantee that the trade will be conducted properly.
-
Fair enough, then. I've misrepresented you there. You haven't said that an unregulated market will achieve balance on its own. But you say that we should leave it alone all the same. So, the implications are that the market will somehow balance itself or that you don't care whether or not it achieves equilibrium. Am I missing something?gimme a break noob. you said:"you still have to provide convincing arguments that a fully unregulated market is a perfectly self-balancing system and is preferable to the alternatives."
no, i don't. i only have to prove that regulation doesn't work. that's been done to death. you misrepresent me when you assume i think that a "fully unregulated market is a perfectly self-balancing system." i never said that at all.
No, I didn't say you are wrong. I say you are purposefully avoiding criticism of your own ideas. You are doing it even now by diverting the attention towards how you are misrepresented and approaching the discussion from both a moralistic perspective, and the "auditorial" posture, both of which allow you to lay out your arguments without actually backing them up.what assumption? you said that explicitly.
Nice try, but no:my ideas are comments about what is not working, and i have.
(1) is a logical leap which doesn't necessarily follow from its premises, non sequitur. You are making the claim that a change to a model you believe is superior is warranted in light of the success (or lack thereof) of the tried alternatives. This is not just "commenting about what doesn't work". It's advocating a different approach, for which you lack any form of support other than "the alternative doesn't work", which is fallacious in itself because:my claim is that the free market is the only way to go(1) simply because no other means of regulating the free market have worked(2), and it is easy to prove this true.(2) Isn't strictly true either, as we haven't yet witnessed the complete collapse of all the alternatives to a truly free market.
edit: I suck at phrasal verbs
What are you playing now?
in Computer and Console
Posted
I hated the endgame, anyway. Multi spawners and invisible barriers = cheapness all across the board.
FWIW, the 1.5.05 patch was released earlier this week... you may want to check it out.