Cantousent

Nice side-step on my counter proposal. I'll conclude that you concede that point. Don't you ever get tired of putting words in my mouth? I merely gave you the last argument. I'm willing to let folks read what we've written so far, including your last post in regards to my arguments, and decide for themselves. If you'd really like my response, and see it as an opportunity to enlarge the discussion rather than aimlessly hunting for more TOMBS points, I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'll leave your proposal in your post and you may think of it as a concession if that will help you sleep at night.

As promised, I'm willing to give you the last word, meta. I gladly welcome anyone reading this thread to view our posts and draw his own conclusions.

Well, I think there's really not much to do now but wait for July and check out the Intel prices. I'm certainly not going to buy anything until November at the earliest. On the other hand, I don't like to dither, so I'll have it settled and probably shipped before January. Overclocking is apparently the way of the future. Since I already use third party solutions to keep my computers running cool, I'm an excellent candidate for overclocking anyhow. I'll look into the fan and whatnot, but I'm still going to stay focused on the Motherboard, CPU, and video card. Those always seem like the core elements to me. That doesn't mean I'll skimp on the rest, of course. I want to get the best system within the budget I've set for myself. Still, as important as the PSU is, it doesn't require the same amount of soul-searching before purchase.

I really don't understand overclocking. I mean, I've been reading about it for years, but it just doesn't make sense. The gist of overclocking seems to be pushing the hardware beyond its designed specs. You could take something that was designed to run at a certain speed and "overclock" it to run faster, but at the cost of quicker degradation of the hardware. However, if things nowadays have tons of overclocking available, does that mean that they're designed to run faster but the manufacturer is setting the speed slower? Can someone give me the gist of all this?

I know a guy who knows a guy, he supposedly gives one hell of a .....not that I'd know anything about that. Sometimes, you frighten me. haha Seriously, can you imagine prostituting yourself for WoW gold, though? I think I saw a screenie of Calax riding a flying epic mount. Well, that or a regular epic mount. I can't recall.

Hmm, I can only think of one person who's left since I started. That person was hired on as a programmer at another company. I think there is some amount of pressure to perform, but not anything excessive. It's a job. Compared to other jobs? Frankly, I actually enjoyed being a salesperson quite a bit. I traveled around the Strip, talked to folks, and sold stuff. Between salary and commission, I didn

I've got a few thousand gold on hand right now. Any of you desperate?

bastard!

Yeah, but who will be meeting Childe and Calax in August? HA! I win the prize. I win it!

Yeah, I've thought about water cooling the last couple of years, but I've always decided against it in the end. For one thing, I buy great hardware, but I never overclock anyhow.

I knew you guys would pull through for me. You know how I like to take my time on this stuff, so waiting a few months won't bother me.

Yeah. I don't tend to do computer builds before year's end, so I don't have any problems being patient until the end of summer.

Okay, homies! (I'm trying to establish street cred by talking the talk) It's nearing the end of the year and you know what that means! Time to consider the next rig. My wife will get this behemouth and you guys can help guide me on my path of righteousness. A righteously kick ass computer! So, I'm going to get started with the basics: Motherboard, CPU, and video card. Let's start with video. First of all, I bought the 7900 before the 7950s hit the market and I haven't been unhappy. Frankly, video hasn't been a problem for me since I had to tweak everything when I first built the system. One thing that does bother me, however, is the noise. It's crazy loud, so I was thinking of getting a water cooled video card. BFG Tech BFGR88640GTSOCWCE GeForce 8800GTS 640MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 OC Water Cooled Edition HDCP Video Card - Retail It's a bit pricy, but it's also quiet and should run a little cooler. I'm not dead set on it and, as always, my goal is to stay under 2k if possible. As far as processors go, I'm at a bit of a loss. I've currently got an AMD 64 dual core 4400. However, I know that Intel had the best latest showing. On the other hand, I know that Intel's advantage was somewhat less running a 64 bit operating system. So, what's the deal, braniacs? In terms of motherboards, I've always had good luck with Asus, so I'll probably stick with them unless there's something I should know. I don't even want to worry about power supplies, case, or anything else until I figure out what I'm going to do with the video, motherboard, and CPU.

Then the answer is certainly yes. All people are concerned with morals in one way or another.

"You are using the fallacy that "science" is the knowledge learnt from observing the world, the book of facts and laws therein derived from same ... the codex. Science is the mental discipline of only accepting as true what can be demonstrated, predictably, from observed phenomena. It is a rigour of denying what is merely comfortable or convenient to find what is TRUE. You are dodging the spirit of the science by trying to adhere to the letters it is written in." I always find it interesting that you use the word fallacy to describe the other side in a disagreement. Science is the codex. The mental discipline of science is not science. It is a philosophy, but not science. I'm not dodging the spirit of science. I would rather see science as the set of rules. That's not a weaker position, by the way. If we use science as the basis for our observable world, and ethics and morality as our reaction to it, then science is beyond reproach. It works both ways, then. Science cannot speak to faith, true. ...But then faith cannot speak to science. At this point, I would like to establish an basis for agreement. Can we agree that science, as a set of laws or rules, does not care about morals or ethics? Can we agree that Science simply has no stake in the argument. Then, can we agree that those who study science can apply the things they learn through science to enhance their world view? Frankly, despite your clever post, I'm not dodging the issue at all. I sincerely do not believe that science will ever be the basis for ethics or morals. I think I'm I adhering far more rigorously to the spirit of science by separating it from the moral argument than you are by putting it in the middle. Untill we establish that morals and ethics are a purely sentient construct, then I don't see this issue moving at all. "I didn't know anyone was insulted; for my part I'm just trying to clarify a misconception you have." "I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?)" I didn't know if you meant science-bating or if you'd meant to say science-baiting. Either way, it seemed as if you'd taken insult. At any rate, I have no misconception. However, I will let you take the last word. We all know the famed meta constitution and, short of spending the rest of my life answering the arguments you fabricate and attribute to me, I just don't think I can compete. The floor is all yours, meta. :Cant's smiling at meta with a raised eye-brow icon:

Give it time, Atom. The PnP neighborhood is slow most of the time, but you're likely to get a response in the long run. I read this, but I didn't really have anything to add. I'll probably look again later this summer and then post in the topic. I know a lot of the folks around here are like that.

Ahh, you guys win. I'm tired now. However, if I ever pick up Unreal Tournament, I'll have to say a prayer and send you to your maker. hahaha

Hey, you jerk. I saw it there before you deleted it!

I think this would be a great seminal thread for an epistolary sort of writing project, Vol. Or would that be epostolary? haha ...And I'm pretty much fond of everyone, although I won't lie and say I LIKE everyone ALL of the time. :Cant's refusing to name names icon:

I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?) I'm more concerned with why you think science can't AND SHOULDN'T speak to faith. The reason I enquire is that we must be careful to not give too much respect to religion, past its due, lest we end up giving the Narcisistic Personality Disordered carte blanche to delude those "willingly gullible" cult members. Good Lord! (a little prayer on my part) Science cannot speak to faith in the sense of morals. If we're disussing universal laws governing our worldly circumstances, I think we should always give the nod to science. Is eating fatty foods bad for you? Is it dangerous to drive without a seatbelt? These are questions science should answer. Should I care enough about my life to eat a balanced diet and wear a seatbelt? Science does not answer that question. Science will never answer that question. Science might say that the reason we value our own is a matter of genetics or a survival instinct. It might say that the species would die should we not value our own lives. ...But it doesn't care if we die. Science doesn't care if our species dies. What we value, other than in the most hedonistic sense, will never derive from science. Our values are a separate issue. Why can't science give guidance for morals? Because science doesn't care. It just doesn't care. It can tell you what the effects are for a variety of actions by looking at what the effects have been. It can provide the basis for convincing others once you've made a decision regarding policy. ...But Science doesn't have a conscience any more than a rock feelings. As far as putting words in my mouth, meta, I'll trust that you can find a place where I said that humanism doesn't exist. Does science insist that secular humanist: "...search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility?" Hell, even my toothy colleague owned up to the fact that science, as a set of universal laws, does not have a stake in a moral argument. Does science care about enhancing human well-being? In all this, I've always thought it was fair game to bash religion, just generally bad form. After all, the types of sweeping generalizations that atheists claim religious folks use are not all that dissimilar to the same types of sweeping generalizations some atheists use. No, for the record, I don't believe that religion is above scrutiny when faced with observable factors. However, I will ultimately always believe that science will never be the basis for a moral or ethical code. Sure, you might value science as a secular humanist, but to suggest that science is the basis for your values deifies it. Now isn't that strange? If this is a general discussion of religion v science, then just say so. However, I've gone on in the understanding that we're discussing a narrow issue. Should science speak to faith? No. Wait, I haven't made myself clear. On that specific issue, no. ...But I just don't understand why you guys feel so insulted. I think secular humanism is a perfectly reasonable world view. It is not my world view, but I'm willing to accept that it's yours without rancor or ill will. I've said that in more than this post and in more than this thread. I've said that, while science isn't the basis for morals, that morals need not be based on religion or even spirituality. I've said that in more than this post and more than this thread. I guess, if the question is, should science speak to religion on matters outside value judgments? the answer will be yes. *shrug* I doubt that'll be acceptable, but it's the best I can do.

By amoral, I mean entirely lacking in morals. Scientists are human beings, and are keenly interested in morals. Every single one of them. They might refer to morals as "ethics" or some such, but all people are concerned with morals. It's, as my friend Gorth might say, part of our moral gene. ...And don't think I mean it as an insult when I say that science is amoral. I don't. Science isn't a living thing. Depending on how you look at it, it's either the set of universal laws that govern existence or the language man uses to express what laws and theories he understands. The question meta posed was, "should science speak to faith." My opinion, from empirical morality onward, is that it not only should not, but that it cannot. However, I'm taking a few things for granted. One, I take for granted that we can accept the nature of our universe as we experience it. Where there are laws that govern our existence, we should accept them and proceed through the discussion. Where there are disputes regarding universal laws, we should rely on science as the basis of the discussion. Faith, however, is concerned with our spiritual side. We rely on something outside of science to tell us what is "right" or "wrong." I don't suggest that folks must have religion, or even any spiritual faith, to have a moral compass, but science cannot provide the basis. I've always thought TEETH was a bit strident in his denunciation of Christianity, but I've always been willing to accept his belief in secular humanism. That doesn't mean I'm not Catholic. It just means that I can accept different world views for the sake of the discussion. The upshot is, amoral simply means without morals. It is not immoral.

Your feelings are grounded in yourself. The point I've been making is that I don't have any animosity for your secular humanism (a much better fight to pick than empirical morality, btw). You have real animosity for religion. However, have you not observed good, decent people of faith? Your observations have shown you that those of us in "another realm" are all wicked?

Well, it wasn't exactly harsh. haha. I WILL let out the details I think are appropriate, but you'll just have to wait a couple of months. As for the job, I do take it seriously. I won't stay here after the project, but I do take it seriously and try to do the best job I can.

...And this is the problem with reductionism, my toothy friend. To explain all things away with science misuses science. Your kindness... your secular humanism... is reduced to a selfish gene. That's not the deal though. If you choose to use empirical as observation and only observation, a perfectly legitimate choice, then that really doesn't change things. You observe that someone does not have food and thus is hungry. However, it is a moral judgment to believe that hunger is an evil. You observe that inflicting greivous wounds on someone kills them. However, you must believe that killing is evil. For the record, however, I don't doubt that you can form a complete moral compass outside the bounds of religion. The fact is, I don't attack your secular humanism at all. I still think that "empirical morality" is a convoluted tap dance around the issue. I wonder, however, short of renouncing my religion, if it's even possible to find any common ground with you. Science and religion do not mix. Science and morality, by your own admission, do not mix. Since that's been my stance for quite some time, what's the issue? You want to use empirical in something other than it's scientific meaning so that you can claim "empirical morality?" Fine. Fair enough. Kind of undercuts the whole discussion though, huh? I guess we agree that science should not speak to religion. Does observation equate to judgment? I don't think so, but I'll accept the argument for now.

Oh, I agree completely, Spider. Categories make sifting through titles faster. That's the whole purpose of creating categories in the first place. The problem arises when various groups use category classifications as the basis for attacking titles they don't like and thus wish to have them removed. Who determines what fits in any category? If I have a transgender operation, will I be classified as a man or a woman? I'm sure no-one will take advantage of that example to poke fun at me.