taks

think news radio. taks

a paradox surrounded by an enigma wrapped in a conundrum. taks

i have to go on a business trip to CA today, and won't be back till wednesday. then i have a mad rush to type up as much of my research proposal as i can before i meet with my advisor thursday. i won't be in the know w.r.t. NWN2 till the weekend at the earliest, though i may break down and buy it as soon as i see the preliminary reviews from folks around here. taks

politics are rife with hypocrisy. particularly when politicians are involved. taks

which is, btw, 100% strange. taks

i think the test criteria are not all that "objective," either. in particular, there are certain functions that higher cost aircraft are designed to do, which the lower cost aircraft simply cannot do. when we stack them up against each other in functions they BOTH can do, however, i'm not surprised that they perform equally well. can the GAO truly say that when looking at function specific applications? can it say that when the environment (well, theater) is such that the benefits of the high cost aircraft are more noticeable (e.g. flying into a theater where the defense systems are not decimated as meta noted)? taks

running linux on multiple cores results in context switching, which means your process actually gets assigned to whichever core linux feels like placing it on. this happens every HZ update to the system, which is typically 10 ms. in such cases, affinity must be programmed into a process to either force a specific core, or force it to stay on the core it spawned on. for general apps, this is no problem as your code simply swaps to another processor. for benchmarking, however, the cache flush and stack transfer is devastating to your timing results. i'm not sure if it is possible to force a specific affinity externally (i.e. not within the code itself). well, i've never tried nor have i looked into it. should NWN2 wind up with a linux port, it'll be interesting to see how that works. has anyone run regular NWN (linux version) on a multi-core system? taks

isn't HyperThreading simply multiple threads within a single processor? if so, that's a different beast than threading across multiple cores. i'm supposed to be learning posix threads now, btw. should be interesting. taks

i'm not sure i understand the concept of "new atheism." are they redefining the term atheist? i've always felt that atheists just don't believe, nor accept the possibility of belief. agnostics, on the other hand, are trying to back door their way in to good graces should they be wrong about not believing. i.e. "hey god, i always said you _might_ exist, i just never saw any proof until now!" taks

i wasn't trying to say there are no repurcussions. that's the other nifty catch with the ability to voice unpopular opinions: you have to put up with other people lashing back. likewise, if a company behaves in a manner that is oppressive (religion, race, etc.), boycott. make it known that their practices are unacceptable, etc... it works. yeah, my addled brain is having a tough time keeping up. at least the other one is almost spot-on agreement between the two of us. we're not toooo far off here, either. ah, you were simply asking for clarification... gotcha. as for that last bit, i'm torn on how to deal with that. fundamentally i'm opposed to the gubmint telling business how to pay people (just one example). however, there is a reason they had to force business into behaving equitably and i don't disagree (jim crow laws, for example, were ridiculous). unfortunately, the solution has created other problems... torn is the best way to put it. taks

yup. it is generally considered a detriment to gameplay to not have the physical media from which you are playing. those that attempt to play games, of any kind, not just crpgs, without the physical media, often complain of poor graphics, a story that leaves them feeling empty and un-involved, and overall bad gameplay. they say it almost feels as if they're not even playing a game, but simply sitting at a computer. taks

oh, i understood your meaning... at least, everything you've said since the post with the list in it. i don't recall you ever made any value judgements on the list anyway. neither did i, other than i am skeptical. but you've read enough of my comments over the years to know that i usually am with such things. i'm an equal opportunity skeptic of sorts. i'm not making any intelligence judgements on you, me or anyone else, either. as for the article points, i suppose where i differ is that i'm 100% certain. i.e. i don't agree with dawkins. there was a debate a while back where someone posted a similar list, though with less detail, and it turned into a flame war. i remember being accused of something because i was defending those with religion in their lives. my comment was that religion seems to transcend intelligence (i have my reasons for why that would be, btw). whoever the argument was with did not even realize that i was a non-believer. that argument actually attempted to make the claim that "if you are smart, you do not believe and vice-versa." it were teh funny. taks

well, not completely regardless... inciting a riot, for example, is certainly a form of speech that is not protected. neither can you yell "fire" in a crowded amphitheatre. taks

yeah... sticks and stones and all that. if you don't like what someone is preaching, ignore him. people have a right to speak their opinions, even if you or i don't like them. that's the catch with free speech, heck freedom in general, you have to put up with others' statements just as much as they have to put up yours, regardless of what either is saying. not sure what you mean here. we've strayed so far off course, i'm not sure either of us is certain what the other is getting at... par for the course in multi-page debates i suppose. hehe... taks

no, but the were all (at least most that i scanned) some select group of one sort or another, which was more the point i was making. technically, even stating only 1-10% is difficult to do without more detail. correct, it is a question worth asking. that's why i always approach such studies with skepticism. i don't have answers, nor enough data to draw a reasonable conclusion. i don't know why, btw, mensa would not appeal to religious people. i do know that some religious groups forbid joining rotary-like organizations. some people in general don't want to be associated with anything that requires selective membership. taks

yes, actually, dark moth did... well, kinda. it wasn't meant to be directed at any one person anyway, it was more of a "btw, keep this in mind" sort of statement. wow, i guessed right. not a difficult assumption to make, however. i think i was simply making explicit that which you did not. quite frankly, your list was so freaking long that i only skimmed it anyway. uh, yes, they are simply because they are not random in the population. i.e. they're selective because they are either a) at very specific schools or b) from very specific groups. as you have noted, studies at ivy league schools show the opposite. so, for a study to be "not selective," i would argue that the should randomly pick schools, then perform a study. even then, there is selection bias by looking at only colleges, rather than population at large. for example, the mensa study. is the lack of religion due to their intelligence, or simply because the types of things that appeal to mensans do not appeal to religious people in general? taks

ok, thanks for the clarification. that's been my point all along. i'm not talking about people acting on those beliefs (by acting, i mean physically doing something, simpy making a public comment does not apply to what i'm saying). i.e., everything i've said has been about the beliefs themselves. taks

that's why my bod, and all its pearly whiteness, continue to avoid the sun... with the farmer's exception, of course. taks

i take that back, you do have a right to liberty, you have a right to pursue happiness. apologies for the misstatement. however, i still think you misunderstand what "liberty" means, kumquat. it does not mean that you can force everyone to believe as you do. it means you can expect that others will not trample on your rights so long as you do not trample on theirs. regulating how another believes would be trampling on his rights. taks

man, i must've had too much coffee today. modus tollens form of "denying the antecedent." sorry folks. ignore my ignorance. taks

to where? you have a right to dictate other people's moral beliefs? if someone is racist/prejudiced, it is still their problem. no matter how much you want to disagree with their beliefs, how you deal with it is STILL nothing more than YOUR problem. simply having a belief, whether through ignorance or otherwise, does not give you a right to regulate that belief. it only becomes your problem if you make it so. you have a choice to ignore, or leave, if you so desire. i never said anything about acting on their beliefs now, did i? also, i think you misunderstand what the freedom of liberty means. constitutionally, you don't even have a right to liberty. you have a right to pursue liberty. in other words, you have a right to decide for yourself. we're not talking about enslaving others. that's an obvious limitation of another's freedom. we're talking about beliefs. i.e. this is nothing more than a strawman. taks

uh, this would be the modus tollens form of affirmation of the consequent. technically, then, i should have stated "if A then B does not imply if not A then not B." taks

i think it should be noted that saying "intelligent = non-religious" is NOT the same as saying "religious = non-intelligent." if A then B does not imply if B then A. this is an "affirmation of the consequent" fallacy. sort of like saying all squares are rectangles therefore all rectangles must be squares. i personally view the "studies" that were posted earlier as i view all statistical studies: with skepticism. not that they are wrong (and i'm not offering analyses), but many are easily going to be biased by an unrepresentative sample (another logical fallacy, btw). conduct the same polls at st. louis university, for example, and you'll see bias in the other direction (guessing, obviously). do i doubt that those at the high end of the IQ spectrum are less religious? no, but i must admit, i didn't always feel that way (though i have been an atheist for most of my life, and all of my adult life). i just don't use these selective studies to formulate my opinions on the matter, that's all. taks

hehe... i'm fortunate enough to tan easily, so burns are rare. taks

if it is not openly, then who does it effect? if you have a fundamental problem with the way they conduct business, then yes, leave. that's the choice you have to make. your rights only extend so far to have that choice in the first place. not sure what that has to do with what i have said, or what the point of this thread is, but yes, it is their problem. whether or not, and how, you want to deal with their problem, however, is your problem. nowhere did i defend anyone. i merely pointed out WHY prejudice exists. it has always existed, and always will. the only way it will every disapper is if we all look, believe and behave in exactly the same way. so much for freedom of choice then. in fact, people have every right to be racist or prejudiced. if you attempt to impose your moral beliefs on them, then you are suppressing their freedom, and you become equally immoral. the term "thoughtcrime" comes to mind... taks