I'm an avid hunter and own several guns. Trust me -this may just piss me off more than you. Insanity.

I accidentally responded to GF on his profile so if anyone is interested in that, thats where that is.

But I just also wanted to say is that no - what you are describing is not faith. Scientific theories are constantly and rigorously tested; if they fail tests, they are discarded or altered accordingly.

Faith doesn't allow the possibility of being wrong; that's why it's faith.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.

To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.
I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Tyson is just plain wrong here, he says:
"40% of scientists are religious, so this notion that if you are a scientist, your'e an atheist, and if you are religious, you're not a scientist, is just empirically wrong"
Well, those of us who do say there is a conflict between science and religion have never framed the problem that way, the mere fact that there are religious scientists out there isnt evidence of a non-conflict anymore than the fact that a nazi could marry a jew. People can hold 2 or more conflicting views at the same time, we all do it all the time.
First of all, lets look at that "40%" number, it really depends on which poll or survey you look at. Those surveys who asks questions like "Do you believe in a personal god" usually end up in the sub-20% area of "religious" scientists, but if you include people who answer yes to questions like "are you a spiritual person" then maybe the number is closer to 40%.
So I really think 40% is really stretching it in favour of Tysons view here, but I'll let it go, lets say its 40% then, fine. Whats the same number in the general public? 41% 43?. No. its like 90%, right? So what happened to the 50% difference here? Did "No conflict" just happen to them? They just so happened to learn about science and nature, and via a sheer bloody coincidence, the number of religious people dropped by over one HALF???!!
No conflict my ass.
Of course there is a conflict. Tysons own inflated number even shows it directly.
But even if his inflated number was 100%, that ALL scientists were religious, there would still be a conflict, because faith and science are fundamentally different ways of approaching information and knowledge. In fact, they are, by definition, the opposite of eachother. Science can almost fully be described as "A complete absense of faith" and vice versa. If you've got even a hint of faith in your science, you've contaminated the results. Period. Similarly, if you take a hint of science, even at the level of a curious 5-year old, and apply it to the claims of faith, they immediatly start to look preposterous.
No conflict my ass.


To say there is no form of "faith" in science is misleading as well. If you're an avid follower of the science world, how could you be blind to the number of areas where we hold things to be accepted/true that are impossible to prove (outside of complicated math or computer models)? The most obvious example would be a many worlds/dimensions view, so any string theory borders on requiring "faith" to accept. Anything beyond the atomic level is a combination of interpreted observation and applied mathematics that we'll never be able to observe/prove first hand, in a sense we have "faith" that we're correct and have yet to find a reason to break that "faith" but if it happens we accept our "truth" to be not true. People had faith in newtonian physics being a true predictor/theory and we found it to not be the case after all.

I'm not attempting to compare the validity or justifiability of the 2 different flavors of faith. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and there are things we believe and treat as true in science that we only know to be true in the ways we can measure them, and those ways sometimes contradict themselves still! Imagine the wave-particle duality and the contradictions in quantum theorys and Einsteins relativity...both of which we still use today (hell we still use newtonian physics in schools).

totally agree, once you get going it can be really addicting, which rocks. You really should consider rock climbing, I think per capita it's one of the best workouts and it doesn't feel like working out at all. Huge thrill, not dangerous at all, addicting and as challenging as you want to make it. If you can find a gym, that's a nice safe place to start and you don't need to get on-rope either. Plus, there's no real ceiling to how good you can get. I got tired of running because even running daily and on weekends for distance, I wasn't really getting much faster, and running longer just takes more and more time.

Keep up the good work!

In reply to this comment by EDD:
Thanks - and great to hear about you too! I don't know much and I've seen even less of mountain climbing, but I gotta say, I'm starting to see the appeal and maybe one day I'll try my hand in it - for now and for at least a year yet I'll be primarily a runner/triathlete though. High five for us both turning turning our lives around! Don't you just love the addiction and the post-workout high? :

In reply to this comment by residue:
awesome story! I was in horrible shape long ago and got sick of it.. now I'm an avid rock climber and run a couple half marathons each year. I don't think I ever want to do the full...

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I'm going to work out and work out, and work on it, and keep pushing myself until I can do at least one.
Seriously.

Let me elaborate a bit. A year ago I was a complete couch potato. I couldn't jog for more than a kilometer, couldn't do more than 6 or 7 consecutive pushups - near-zero marks on a fitness scale, basically. That all changed this April, when I finally decided to get of my (fat) ass. I'd already started gradually changing my eating habits since year's end 2010, and in April I finally started working out. For half a year I've been allocating somewhere between an hour and two and a half practically each day for workouts; running almost every other day and in between - also every other day - did bodyweight exercises: started with these, built a routine around them, but recently substituted it for a weightlifting program in a gym. I've lost some 15 kg, I've done the 100 pushups program (yup, pretty much anyone can do it, and in less than six months, too), recently ran my first half-marathon (1:47, very proud of that time), and I'm aiming for 2 marathons (NYC among them, hopefully), a 70k ultra, and a long-course triathlon next year.

So because this is so inspiring to me, and because I want to be able to do what he does, and because I realize now that anyone who sets their mind to it and works towards it relentlessly can do it, let's *doublepromote

Thanks - and great to hear about you too! I don't know much and I've seen even less of mountain climbing, but I gotta say, I'm starting to see the appeal and maybe one day I'll try my hand in it - for now and for at least a year yet I'll be primarily a runner/triathlete though. High five for us both turning turning our lives around! Don't you just love the addiction and the post-workout high?

In reply to this comment by residue:
awesome story! I was in horrible shape long ago and got sick of it.. now I'm an avid rock climber and run a couple half marathons each year. I don't think I ever want to do the full...

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I'm going to work out and work out, and work on it, and keep pushing myself until I can do at least one.
Seriously.

Let me elaborate a bit. A year ago I was a complete couch potato. I couldn't jog for more than a kilometer, couldn't do more than 6 or 7 consecutive pushups - near-zero marks on a fitness scale, basically. That all changed this April, when I finally decided to get of my (fat) ass. I'd already started gradually changing my eating habits since year's end 2010, and in April I finally started working out. For half a year I've been allocating somewhere between an hour and two and a half practically each day for workouts; running almost every other day and in between - also every other day - did bodyweight exercises: started with these, built a routine around them, but recently substituted it for a weightlifting program in a gym. I've lost some 15 kg, I've done the 100 pushups program (yup, pretty much anyone can do it, and in less than six months, too), recently ran my first half-marathon (1:47, very proud of that time), and I'm aiming for 2 marathons (NYC among them, hopefully), a 70k ultra, and a long-course triathlon next year.

So because this is so inspiring to me, and because I want to be able to do what he does, and because I realize now that anyone who sets their mind to it and works towards it relentlessly can do it, let's *doublepromote

awesome story! I was in horrible shape long ago and got sick of it.. now I'm an avid rock climber and run a couple half marathons each year. I don't think I ever want to do the full...

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I'm going to work out and work out, and work on it, and keep pushing myself until I can do at least one.
Seriously.

Let me elaborate a bit. A year ago I was a complete couch potato. I couldn't jog for more than a kilometer, couldn't do more than 6 or 7 consecutive pushups - near-zero marks on a fitness scale, basically. That all changed this April, when I finally decided to get of my (fat) ass. I'd already started gradually changing my eating habits since year's end 2010, and in April I finally started working out. For half a year I've been allocating somewhere between an hour and two and a half practically each day for workouts; running almost every other day and in between - also every other day - did bodyweight exercises: started with these, built a routine around them, but recently substituted it for a weightlifting program in a gym. I've lost some 15 kg, I've done the 100 pushups program (yup, pretty much anyone can do it, and in less than six months, too), recently ran my first half-marathon (1:47, very proud of that time), and I'm aiming for 2 marathons (NYC among them, hopefully), a 70k ultra, and a long-course triathlon next year.

So because this is so inspiring to me, and because I want to be able to do what he does, and because I realize now that anyone who sets their mind to it and works towards it relentlessly can do it, let's *doublepromote

As an avid fan of Gary Larson, I immediately saw that this was a picture of a "modern" caveman. An oxymoron but funny.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm starting to feel like Yahtzee is a bad reviewer of games.


Yahtzee is as much a games reviewer as the waynes brothers were movie critics in Living Color. They focused less on details (unless it was called for) and made funny comparisons instead.

And as an avid long time gamer, I DO miss the old days! I am itching to get into the new Tribes 4 game, and would love to see a new Unreal Tournament! Halflife 2 part 3 on the other hand, maybe if valve picked up one of the new cutting edge engines then yes, please. But the source engine is really dated for a standered shooter. I only accepted it in portal because portal wasn't a shooter.

@spoco2

I have to disagree and it comes from someone who was in a very similar position to you when the first iPad was announced and came out. I've worked 13 years in IT and have a pretty good feel for technology and I was CONVINCED there was no real market for a device larger than a smartphone, but smaller than say an airbook. In my mind, the macbook air would have been something 100x better than an iPad for a lot of reasons.

When the iPad hit, I watched and initially felt vindicated because I felt it was just a larger iPhone that just didn't do all the things an iPhone did.

Over the following year though, I saw (at least in my office environment) a very clear niche that it fit far better than a laptop. While it is not as powerful, it was impressively useful in meetings. What people don't seem to get is that when you have a bunch of people with laptops in a meeting, it can actually get quite loud and distracting. There is also the physical barrier of the screen which seems to put people behind a wall in a subtle way. The iPad sits almost flush against the table, allows you to take notes silently and really reduces the distractions of larger laptops.

What impresses me so much about it as a productivity tool is that it doesn't replace a laptop or a phone, but allows for a very specific type of subtlety when in meetings specifically. A year later I got it to replace a macbook air and I'm VERY pleased with how good it is, specifically for meetings. The fact that you can turn it on and off quickly and the battery life is pretty damned good for all it does, I'm really sold for my own business purposes.

This said, I do have some major problems with the way that tablets are being pushed for things they absolutely SUCK at. I'm an avid gamer and I feel that while the iPad has been good with games that work in a touch-screen environment (puzzle games, rpgs, etc.) the insistence that apple and game developers have to try to shove motion/tilt control down my throat, or really shitty third/first-person shooter control is really really annoying. Puzzle Quest 2 - perfect on the iPad, Dead Space - unplayable on the iPad.

As for this video, he really didn't have a choice. Absolutely anything he said would have turned into a giant front-page BS article that would have hurt MS... I'm not surprised at all that he went with no-comment.

You probably have no idea but the scientific method was created by Christians who believed that matter behaved rationally because God created an orderly universe. The same goes for the idea of natural law. Some of the very greatest scientists who ever lived were Christians, and not lapsed Christians either, but pursued science as part of their Christian world view, with their love for Gods amazing creation.

Christianity has never been opposed to science, and neither am I. When I grew up I wanted to be an astronomer, and I had the math skills, I would probably be one today. I think the study of the Universe is extremely fascinating and wonderful. I just don't happen to agree with all the conclusions of modern science. Specifically the age of the Universe and its theories about origins.

As far as my church is concerned, there is no pressure to tithe. People give because they want to, not because anyone pressured them to do it. My church uses the money it gets to build wells for people who don't have access to clean water. The only time I ever hear money mentioned is when we're trying to raise some for a charitable cause. There are definitely some churches which are run around the tithe, but you won't find the Spirit of God there. We get together because we love God, and we study the bible and sing hymms. It's a fellowship. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, but your salvation doesn't come from going to church. The church is a place where Christians gather together to worship God..going to church doesn't make you Christian, and pastors don't decide if you go to Heaven. A pastor is the same as anyone else in that regard.

In short you present a false dichotomy that doesn't exist in my world. I am an avid user of technology, and the beneficial use of science, but I oppose the conclusions of the secular worldview that is driving some aspects of it. If you don't think there is an agenda please watch the documentry "Expelled".

As far as my beliefs, I am not selling anything. I don't want your money. I am quite plainly just trying to save your life, because I honestly care about you as a human being. I cannot remain silent about the gospel in any case, because it is the good news and I am commanded by God to preach it.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
So, um, what were these lies that have been told to you all your life? That the earth is round and over 4 billion years old? That the sun is the center of the solar system? That there is undeniable evidence that suggests that man evolved from primates?
Now that you have found god and are visiting the church regularly (and likely investing a good amount of your accumulated agnostic secular materialistic wealth into the collection plate) you believe that those people are telling you the truth? Instead of providing evidence that supports their claims you are told to believe based upon faith? The church is asking you for your time, your money, your obedience, all in exchange for some supposed heavenly glory that you will never be certain that you will receive.
Tell me, what has the scientific community ever asked of you in return for the knowledge that they are offering?
Look around you, every modern convenience that you currently enjoy was made possible by science and engineering. Science drives our species forward, religion fights to hold us back while struggling to stay relevant.
Believe what you want, just keep it to your self. I don't need what you are selling.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

Thank you peggedbea--that's exactly the kind of quality post I wanted in the comments! I can only learn to sympathize by hearing about the hardships other people have face. Sorry it happened, but glad you shared it.

I bet it is not rare to avoid hiring single mothers. It is also not rare to have a breast pumping policy (Which, I am an avid supporter of women's right to breastfeed and pump milk at the workplace.)

>> ^peggedbea:

if you're looking for anecdotes of women passing up opportunities to take care of kids... or being fucked because they kids or a vagina... i got both.
I passed up a seemingly lucrative middle-management position in healthcare so that i could stay home during the week with my kids when they were both too young for school. I opted instead for the 40 hours in 2.5 days overnight on the weekend shift. Granted, I had no desire to be anyone's manager ever. But it would have been more money and improved job stability.
Also, at the exact same company... I was eventually promoted into CT scan... where I was systematically treated like horse shit. Mostly for having a young child-bearing vagina. All 3 single dads in my department were given 20% wage increases at some point or another because they had to "pay child support" ... as if, as a single mom, 100% of my fucking wages didn't go to the care of my children. And then, the CT department held monthly team meetings during the week. I had to miss one because my youngest, asthmatic child had pneumonia. My slag of a boss attempts to write me up for missing a meeting. and then I find out that one of my coworkers (a man) never ever has to attend meetings because he works nights and is home with his children during meeting hours. Well, so was I. When I brought this up to my boss, she tore up my write up. AND THEN, when my regular coworker would take a night off work, I'd always be scheduled to work with this one creep who would do creep things like... pin me up against the wall and tell me how he likes to be touched, talk about my tits, touch my ass every time i leaned across a counter and try to fuck me in break room when we didn't have any patients. He wouldn't quit so I finally told my boss if she scheduled him with me again, I was going to call in sick.... so that cunt calls me 2 weeks later and threatens me ... i recorded that phone call and turned it over to her bosses... then i found out that the creepy guy was pulling the same shit on the $9/hr file clerks and my boss also ignored their complaints. I brought this to the director of the department's attention... I was fired 3 weeks later. After 8 years with 0 write-ups, I was fired for insubordination.
guess who works my shift full time now?????

oh an that same boss would tell me things like "i had 4 days a week to be a mother" when i had to call in an on call tech ONE TIME IN 8 YEARS because my kid had pneumonia.
also, it is extremely rare for a company to provide child care... your wife is very fortunate. it is not at all rare on the other hand for companies to avoid hiring single mothers.

There's a reason why grown adults aren't allowed to use the 6lbers.

That being said, I was a rather avid bowler in my late teens and once came close to doing something similar.

For anyone who doesn't know, you're supposed to slide a little bit on your final step as you release the ball. That's why bowling shoes are soled with suede.

In this particular case, on my final step I planted my left foot in what was probably a little spill of soda. My little slide became an abrupt stop and I flopped forward onto the floor, simultaneously launching my bowling ball (a 12lb) virtually straight up. Luckily, I didn't do any damage to either myself or the alley. The ball gently nudged one of the ceiling tiles out of place and then fell to the floor a few feet in front of me.

Also luckily, the owner knew us well enough (we were there every weekend) that he knew we weren't screwing around and that something must have happened.

I've heard some horror stories about this one. This looks like a huge step backwards. Dear Avid, it looks like your competition gave up.

Ok well I've known plenty of christians. Some are friends, can't say I've dealt with too many who consider the bible to be a literal telling of past events. That's why I say you seem like an extreme to me, I mean how much more extreme to at least that angle can one get..?

I'm an avid PC gamer.. some would consider me extreme in that regard and I wouldn't dispute it.

As far as Diakatana goes, that is why I think it was a good game, because I remember it and I remember enjoying a lot of parts. I played through at least twice, the second time using just the daikatana (for the most part) because if you remember, the more you used it the more powerful it became. It was fun smashing through hordes of enemies with a powerful sword. The other weapons were good and varied. You could also level up your attributes as you went along. The mythical greece and midieval norway levels were beautiful imo. It was like 4 smaller games rolled into one. Once the patch was out, your teammates didn't get in the way and sometimes helped out. The voice acting was more stereotypical versus actually racist and I think they were trying to inject some humor into it. There were a lot of secret areas to be found. I could go on, but thats enough about diakatana.

I found some positive reviews about Duke Nukem Forever so it's not all bad reviews: (these seem more like my experiences)

http://www.gamefront.com/duke-nukem-forever-review/
http://gamers-underground.com/content/978-review-duke-nukem-forever.html
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/10/duke-nukem-forever-review/

And I think I was grumpy because I had a reaction to a wasp sting on my wrist which swelled up my hand and wrist bad enough I had to go to the hospital that day. I also couldn't play any more Duke


>> ^ponceleon:

You know, I can tell you that the fundamental thing that comes to mind about Daikatana was that it was entirely forgettable. I've been an avid gamer since BEFORE the Commodore 64, I've played the greats and I think back to games which were contemporaries of Daikatana, say Deus Ex and I can tell you every last detail about that game. Now, if you ask me about Planescape: Torment, another game that predates Daikatana, I can go on and on about why that game was amazing. Despite having played through all of Daikatana, all I have in my mind is the vague impression of a horribly put together game, poor (and arguably racist) voice acting, terribly outdated graphics for when it was released, drab design, unimaginative writing and a lot of broken promises.
What I mean by that last part was that there was a LOT that was promised in the development of the game that never happened. What was it? I can't remember worth a damn and that's the point. It was a minor blip that didn't live up to 1/10th of what John Romero promised and it certainly didn't make me his bitch.
I get what you are trying to say about Duke though. Hell, I even agree that it is something we NEED to play. But after watching videos and reviews, I really don't think it is a fluke that it is coming in at 40/50% reviews (at best). Like I said in another post, that moment where they compare Duke to that annoying uncle you thought was hilarious when you were 8, but now just see as sad and really unimaginative.
Again, I'll stand by Gearbox as well. We all wanted to see this mess and they did the work to bring it to us.
As for feeling like Mr. Grumpypants, no worries, I think DNF has made us ALL Mr. Grumpypants this week.