Diamond

The argument is already over. Come on, people! Is there a need for more sarcasm?

Love and Peace!

Yes, look like you are right on that point, however on a long run music market will self-balance. "CD piracy is rampant, but legal downloading is on the rise"

No, we perfectly understand you. Evolution IS NOT TAUGHT AS A FACT. Every heading in every textbook I've seen says "Evolution theory"

I'm not trying to say that science is fact, but it is SCIENCE. ID is NOT SCIENCE. Evolution is SCIENCE. Biology is SCIENCE class. I hope that should be clear.

Yep, that was the original issue - teaching creationalism in a pure science class.

It should be in Religous Studies or Philisophy couse, but not in Biology until the theory develops a solid scientific research base.

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for further research. It is science. So? Another quote supporting your opinion. I can get heaps of quotes supporting mine. That's what everyone is saying to you. Present it as an alternative, but not in biology class.

Not so simple with kids who absorb all the knowledge without a question. They should know what is currently considered the most reliable scientific theory, and gain knowledge, not speculating over theories. If ID is to be presented in class, then it should stay out of biology class, since it is science class.

Whereas evolution theory is backed by volumes of works and research by numeorus scientists, and intelligent design is backed by what? It is simple - if it doesn't have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, do not teach it. Because there is less probability of it being valid. That's why some SCIENTIFIC theories are not taught (not only in biology)

It is not the religion that is the issue, but rather a lack of scientific evidence. There is a number of theories out there, which are scientific, but they are not as widely accepted due to lack of scientific evidence.

Whatever the excuse, piracy does hurt companies. It is silly to say "piracy is not theft". Bulk of game production budget goes into making a game, not manufacturing media. In fact, making actual copies got even cheaper than several years ago. So, by your logic, game/music companies must have just fantastic profits. Why? One label can't just "raise prices", because competing recording labels will profit from that. Prices usually stay at their "natural" level, if not taking into account other factors, like inflation.

But we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far from connecting these two together.

That

Yes, PC gamers buy less games according to this survey (however it is an online one and doesn't show sample size).

I almost meet the recommended specs, but... Damn my 16Mb GeForce 440Go. <_< Oh, well...

What is your laptop? I'm planning to buy Civ4, but I don't know if it happily runs on my laptop.

To summarize my thoughts: I'd rather rely on statistical data (to a certain extent, of course) rather than on someone's (including mine) experience.

and

MK3 Ultimate is the best of all series, IMO. :nostalgia:

*cough* What about variance then?

MK3 Ultimate had a strange guy named Noob Saibot (name says it all) That's who I really hated.

Probably you didn't take statistics classes, or just being humorous BTW, If you didn't take stats classes, DON'T

OK, I give up on that one (Fatality!). :D

As I said, that's what statistics is doing. You estimate based on a sample using statistical methods. Usually it means sampling until the variance is within a reasonable range. Nobody in the world would be interested in surveys were they that useless. Yes it is only a part of the picture due to variable financial abilities, but we are talking about who plays games. (Actually, given that younger players can't spend as much on games, it will probably skew data even more)