Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karkov]

I'm so confused as to why people expect to have some climactic battle between our team and the bots on DotA.  Namely the two people on voice chat with me.  They absolutely insist that if you're playing a bot game, you have to play as though it's a regular game, and that you're not fighting the dumbest things in existence.  Or in some cases, the most cheating, but that's because they all coordinate like nobody's business.

So some guy will obviously exploit the bots, it's because he wants to stomp them and just have fun, not because he's being spiteful to you or something.  But they take it as a personal affront whenever someone takes advantage of the bots just not knowing what to do, and then they proceed to feed and just basically be dumb the entire rest of the game.  And then they complain about the community.

It baffles me, I just wanted a game where I could see what the character could do, instead I get stuck in a solo lane with the two most aggressive heroes the bots can throw at me while the guy they're trying to sabotage (following him around, feeding all of the bots) just takes off because they're inadvertently tanking for the guy. 

Just, forget the asshole, report him for ability abuse if you're that salty about it, and play the game and help instead of being what you complain about.  Augh.

[Skyrunner]

Over the course of some seven classes and seven practice SAT tests, my Writing score (scaled without the essay section) has never ever passed 650. Rawr.

It's the only place I can improve on and it just won't budge.

[Tiruin]

Over the course of some seven classes and seven practice SAT tests, my Writing score (scaled without the essay section) has never ever passed 650. Rawr.

It's the only place I can improve on and it just won't budge.

Hmm, perhaps shift your writing style towards the modern standpoint? That's to say, philosophize a bit and 'immerse' yourself in how you write? Works for me, as far..

[Skyrunner]

It's multiple choice, mostly grammar and sentence improvement.

[Iceblaster]

I'm starting to think it is less and less possible for an unbiased -or very close to it- Christian Science book towards Evolution.

I swear, if I see the words 'anti-religion crusader' and 'scientist' in the same sentence again, I'm going to eat a sandwich(and yes I do know those people exist somewhere, but from what I've seen, not many people off the top of my head are like that)

Oh and, yes you include Darwin's birthdate, but pray tell, why is Abraham Lincoln's birthdate included? You making a point author?

* Iceblaster takes a breath

I need a goddam sandwich...

[LordSlowpoke]

I'm starting to think it is less and less possible for an unbiased -or very close to it- Christian Science book towards Evolution.

I swear, if I see the words 'anti-religion crusader' and 'scientist' in the same sentence again, I'm going to eat a sandwich(and yes I do know those people exist somewhere, but from what I've seen, not many people off the top of my head are like that)

Oh and, yes you include Darwin's birthdate, but pray tell, why is Abraham Lincoln's birthdate included? You making a point author?

* Iceblaster takes a breath

I need a goddam sandwich...

well, what a scientist would do now is to find an anti-religion crusader and test whenever you're going to consistently eat these sandwiches

you wanted a sandwich. make it a good one.

[10ebbor10]

I'm starting to think it is less and less possible for an unbiased -or very close to it- Christian Science book towards Evolution.

Why would you even want that?

I mean, it's generally preferable keep both strictly separated. Otherwise you'd end up with some weird mix, that degrades both and is generally not beneficial to anything. It's best to keep religion out of science, and science out of religion.

[Iceblaster]

I'm really just wanting a way to learn both sides without glaring bias.

I get told creationism is right all the time, I at least want to be able to learn what evolution is without having to supplement it with online sources on my own time.

[10ebbor10]

Creationism* is a good example of a twisted combination of science and religion, and should not be considered to be the religious side of the story. Actually, it simply should not be, but that's an argument for another time.

You'd be looking more for old-earth creationism, which while more correct, has still quite a few flaws.

Then there's theistic evolution, which is apparently the official position of the Church, which says that whatever the scientists say is correct, but that God was involved there somewhere  somehow. (Individual theories vary wildly.)

*Well, literal creationism (recent subset: Intelligent Design) anyway. I mean, the entire literal creationism/fundamentalist interpretations are a fabrication originating in 1920's America.

[10ebbor10]

I think you could fit in with NOMA too. After all, the fact that both are separate doesn't mean that one of the 2 is useless.

[BlackFlyme]

Damnit dogs, you're lab dogs, not lap dogs, stop trying to jump on me!

Get off my chair, you can't fit in it! Stop licking me!

Leave me alone dogs, I'm trying to fix my broken mod!

[Flying Dice]

I guess I'm of the theistic evolution approach, or some individual theory thereof, but I've never been of the opinion that science and religion are poles on the same spectrum. No, the two shouldn't mix blood, but I'd like to believe there's a place (and perhaps a need!) for both.

On that note, religion needs to change, too- people change, society changes. It bugs me that those against homosexuality are quoting parts of the book that had people sacrificing their best goats on the sabbath and smearing blood around doorways. Just as we no longer believe through "science" that the body is made of four humors, we need to move past some of the tie-over notions from long-gone societies.

That's my two cents, and I've been sitting on it for too long. Ass pennies not gaining interest, eh.

But gay sex is iiicky. Or at least that seems to be the real underlying thought behind a lot of it, once you scrape away the blind dogma and ignorant hatred. On a broader spectrum (but especially in terms of the rejection of science) there's very much a post-industrial, post-modern bent; distrust of authority naturally lends itself to disbelief of science, because scientific truths (for lack of a better term) are by default dispensed by authority figures. Those people in the contemporary first world who distrust scientists do so for the same basic reason that they distrust attorneys, politicians, and literati: they're experts in something which is not readily comprehensible to those without training or experience in the field, and are thus authority figures who therefore must be suspected rather than trusted. Religion just offers an easy excuse for doing so in the case of science.

It's really remarkable how rapidly the attitude towards authority figures was so rapidly reversed, and on such a basic level. Not just in terms of, say, the awakening of student protestors during the Vietnam war police action, but for virtually an entire society. Half a century ago, even if you didn't like the President, even if his political views were anathema to you, you still respected the office and trusted that he at least was trying to do right by the country. That's not the only example, just the most prominent one. Another is, as mentioned, the rapid loss of trust that occurred during all of the revelations about various drugs, about the effects of nuclear power (and Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.), and other things that helped kill trust in science. These days, if our doctor tells us to take a medicine, we investigate it rather than just smiling and swallowing every night. Truly remarkable.

And wow, that fell into a tangent quickly.

[LordSlowpoke]

there are places where people actually have to check what their doctor is prescribing them? i know you're only using it as an example but i personally ran on the assumption that with my short-if-nonexistent list of known allergies available to them and the frivolous lawsuits people love to throw around with even the slightest fuckup they'd pick the best one for you. depending on who/where they are, they might go with most cost effective though.

. . . holy hell my mindset regarding highly specific authority figures might be stuck in the fifties now that i think about it

is this bad

Ok, I refuse to let anyone put me down.

I had enough of that this week, just this constant parade of insults and yelling.

good luck~!

let us know how it goes for you.

[Neonivek]

Ok, I refuse to let anyone put me down.

I had enough of that this week, just this constant parade of insults and yelling.

good luck~!

let us know how it goes for you.

Well, I chosen to ignore people who do this (put me down, not say good luck )

No quarter, no negotiation, no diplomacy, no downplaying it. It is all out war! and to the victor my sanity.

If I must comment I will shortly express what I need to say and move on. They can put down someone else in the time I am saving them.

[Frumple]

there are places where people actually have to check what their doctor is prescribing them? i know you're only using it as an example but i personally ran on the assumption that with my short-if-nonexistent list of known allergies available to them and the frivolous lawsuits people love to throw around with even the slightest fuckup they'd pick the best one for you. depending on who/where they are, they might go with most cost effective though.

Big pharma has big pockets, LS. It's not terribly unheard of for doctors to prescribe things that... really don't need to be prescribed. Beyond that, doctors often prescribe the most expensive medicine, even if something else is as or nearly (and definitely sufficient, many times) as effective (being fair, they do this as an attempt to avoid lawsuits, but...). Plus there's just... other stuff. It's a mess, in a general sense. At least in the states. Second, third, etc. opinions are usually a good idea, if you can afford to get them.

Personally? I had to get a second surgery done because the first doctor that did it did something basically monumentally stupid (went ahead and closed the wound instead of leaving it open to heal -- which is what should have been done, and what happened the second round). A second opinion (or a couple) and a little research would have probably cut a good three months or so out of my bed-ridden period, several years back. Was a bit too young at the time, and not the one talking to the doctors (was back in high school, bleh), but... yeah.

As for the lawsuits, well. That tends to be for people that can afford legal fees. That's not very many people, all told, and there's definitely doctors out there that just run the numbers and decide the occasional lawsuit's worth the money on the net.