..maybe if it were a TED talk?
but, yeah in general, the quality of TED talks has plummeted. That could have something to due with all of the TEDx talks, and with people trying to emulate the 'TED style'.. which has just become annoying.

Just a guess, but maybe the capitol of Western Australia (which I'm assuming is a 'state')...senate chamber? So sad that they seem to have emulated our (US) congress in attendance and respect.

I went to lower and middle school in Texas, private and public. In public school I was paddled with the 'board of education' for refusing to say there was no such thing as a negative number in 5th grade. (private school had taught me that there certainly WAS such a thing by that point, but no one had taught my 5th grade teacher).
This is a great reason for other states to ignore Texas when purchasing text books, their board of miss-education has a clear history of ignoring or re-writing history, science, and (from my experience) even math!
When the board is populated mostly (or solely) with people that don't believe in public education, you end up with books and teaching methods designed to prove that point rather than teach. That's not a method others should emulate.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.

It's not so much where the artist originates, it's the fans that follow him and try to emulate him/use him as a role model...

I just started with the Internet with a shell account on dial-up. This was before I discovered SLIP, PPP, emulators, etc. in college. Does that count?

Fascinating, especially because since 1985 I have ALWAYS wondered how the light gun worked, but I just never looked into it.

I bought some USB NES controllers and got an emulator and lots of old games so my kids can play when they're big enough, but I wish I could have an actual NES console for them, like one that looks like the original but maybe is just all software-based or something.

*quality

@shagen454:
Blizzard has never been a creative force; their strength was in polish. They were great at taking existing concepts and designs and showing everyone how it should be done (see: Warcraft/Starcraft, WOW).

Unfortunately, game design is incredibly stagnant right now and Blizzard has nothing new to emulate. 1996 was the last time they launched a unique property (Diablo). They've been mostly remaking their own games since then:
* Warcraft sequels/spinoffs
* Diablo sequels/expansions
* Starcraft (Warcraft meets Warhammer 40k)
* Starcraft sequels/expansions/spinoffs
* WOW (a spinoff but a major one)
* WOW spinoffs/expansions

Then they lost a lot of the talent that made them good at the one thing they were good at (see: ArenaNet), so they're stuck milking the addicts at this point.

I also cried, because I loved that show as a little kid when it aired in my country, watching it together with my siblings as we had an amazing adventure along with the characters of the show every single episode. The reason I'm crying now, however, is because:

Unlike the original series, this sequel is produced entirely in France; as a co-joint venture between the French television channel TF1, the Belgian channel La Trois, the French animation company Blue Spirit and Jean Chalopin's company Movie-Plus Group.
The first of the new seasons sees the series move to China. The design of the characters are more or less the same, although some subtle changes have been made to their physical appearances. Jean Chalopin and Bernard Deyries act as creative consultants on the new series, with Chalopin concentrating particularly on the scripts (which are written by Hadrian Soulez-Lariviere from Chalopin's own draft for the sequel) and Deyries focusing particularly on the graphical aspects. New background music is composed by Noam Kaniel.

It's not the same animation, it's not the same writers, it's not the same setting, it's not the same voice actors and it's not the same memorable music. Nothing's the same. It's the same feeling as with the Star Wars prequels if you can believe it, only with less source material. Maybe our children will enjoy this show without having the nostalgic baggage of "The Mysterious Cities of Gold" series; but for me as a fan of what must be 25 years or more, this just looks unwatchable.
Not everything good is made better by making more of it, and especially after a 30 year period of the series being over and done with. I think that the window of opportunity has passed on making another season of this show by a couple of decades, I think the season they're making looks inferior both in content and quality and I think the people who made the series work so well aren't being emulated, making this creation something akin to a stranger wearing a face mask of the show, something which is copying the names but is completely set apart from "The Mysterious Cities of Gold", with no legs of its own to stand on but only a cheap imitation crutch.

I was certain the Xbone was going to be backwards compatible. I thought that question was settled last generation. People want backward compatibility.

So fuck them. I was loving the 360, but now I'm back to being PC-centric.

This idea of having to collect all the consoles so you can play the games you want to play is ridiculously stupid. And they wonder why people develop emulators so they can play everything on the PC

I just recently discovered you can easily get old Nintendo ROMs to run with an emulator on your computer and what seems like every old NES game is freely available for download. I can't wait to receive the USB Nintendo controllers I just ordered so I can get into some classic, good games, not like all the crap they're shoveling nowadays.

I can't wait for my boys to be old enough to start enjoying them, especially Super Mario Bros. Just too bad Duck Hunt is no longer an option.

Dial-up with my next door neighbor. I think we had to use IPX/SPX network emulation or something? Too bad this game never got a sequel!

Tremendous amount of ignorance in here; not the faggoty liberal 'being a meanie' ignorance, but the dictionary definition 'you don't know what the fuck you're talking about' ignorance.

There's very little room for multiple interpretations of Islam. The Qur'an was written by a single (insane) author; with clear instructions on how to interpret it - literally; and how to resolve any inconsistencies within the text - the chronologically later passage supercedes the earlier.

The various Islamic sects differ over the authenticity of the Hadith, accounts of Momo's opinions and behaviour, which they are expected to emulate. None of them dispute the authority or the text of the Qur'an, which they imagine to be the infallible word of god.

There are peaceful, conciliatory passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from early in Muhammad's career, when he wasn't so secure in his position that he could afford to be a total cunt to non-believers. There are violent, xenophobic passages in the Qur'an; which generally date from later in Muhammad's career, when his success as a warlord left him far better placed to be a total cunt to non-believers. The chronologically later passages supercede the earlier.

The favorite example is At-Tawbah 5, the 'Verse of the Sword'; from the chronologically penultimate surah of the Qur'an it scrubs out any earlier peaceful passages by commanding that Muslims:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"

THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE

There's a peculiar general tendency to conflate the violent historical practice of other religions, like Christianity, with the actual scriptural commandment to violence of Islam. These are not equivalent. In any case the big M positioned Islam as a continuation and successor of Christianity and Judaism, admitting the validity of their prophets and texts, so it has to inherit their crimes as well.

Ultimately, all the religious are criminals. In abandoning reason and responsibility for their own actions, in turning over their volition to the dictates of invisible spirits, they have disposed of ethics and their own humanity.