51. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274938 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Black Wolf but wouldn't he be even more perfect if he could create morals and the universe without even existing? Now THAT would be badass.

52. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #274936 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 2:32 pm

408. Comment #274931 by Mitchell Gilks

Oh, alreet. I thought he might be but just in case I basically took it as an opportunity to give some more background on what your avatar is, hah.

53. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #274934 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Regarding pick-up lines...

But, whatever happened to "How about a fuck?"

I think you could do much better if you fake an English accent and say "fancy a shag?" Girls tend to dig English accents, idk why.

Though it's not easy to keep the act going all night...

54. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #274927 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Bonzai to Mitchell...

What is with your avatar? These girls look under age, sicko.

It's from a comedy series based on a 4-panel comic strip. Not really anything even close to sexual in it so...

55. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274911 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 2:12 pm

The idea of "something from nothing" is still not supported by physics

Then why are there all these negative campaign ads on TV making a big something out of nothing? Let's see physics deal with that!

Damn wrong thread.

56. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274857 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Turok's arguments may have been extremely thin, and have been answered many, many times before, but from my point of view, he "won" that debate.

Well, I'm not surprised. Turok DID live at the same time as dinosaurs. Hunted them, even. So clearly evolution is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turok_Dinosaur_Hunter

57. Atheist Bus Campaign Comic

Comment #274716 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

"There is no such think as bad publicity"

That would be funny to see on a bus.

58. Atheist Bus Campaign Comic

Comment #274699 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 10:30 am

Wow what a rubbish comic! If you spend 5 minutes drawing what looks like crap, at least make it funny...

59. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #274686 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 10:21 am

Did you know that 'supernatural' rhymes with 'superflatular,' which is a word I just made up that means 'responsible for lots of farts?'

Yes that's right. You thought you could have an insightful discussion free of stupidity here? How wrong you were!

60. Dole Ad Fabricates Audio Of Opponent Yelling 'There Is No God'

Comment #274662 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 9:43 am

It's super lame that calling someone "godless" is indeed such an evil, cheap, dirty tactic. It's a shame it works, and it's a shame that Hagan's reply is nothing but "hey I'm NOT an atheist!! look at all this religious shit I do! how DARE you call me an atheist!"

61. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274617 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 8:45 am

I propose DarwinsPitbull, for directly and indirectly helping generate something like 6000 posts here.

62. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274584 by Sciros on October 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

Sarmatae

Thank you for making my point.

Okay... so up front you show that you're clue-free about what you quoted. Epic.

So you admit that the person you may be voting for is not in your best interest.

Actually I pointed out that he WAS by virtue of his situation. But hey why let reality get in the way of idealism...

To waste a vote, voting "against" someone, instead of the person who you believe is best suited to the job.

Wrong. The person best suited for the job is the person that is best qualified for it AND is able to take the job. Or should I write in 'Batman'? He'd be pretty good.

Here's a tip: if it doesn't make sense in the actual situation, it's not going to make sense using a stupidly contrived analogy.

You are one of 10 passengers in a van.(U.S.) The driver(Bush) is driving it like he stole it(pun intended, 2004 elections). You are heading toward a cliff and the road branches ahead. Both branches take you over the cliff. But wait! The driver(Bush) must eject, you have time to select another driver.

There are three choices.
You feel that driver A will be able to steer the van in a whole new direction away from the cliff and possibly save you.

And there's where your analogy fails to be appropriate. Driver A, in this case analogous to a 3rd party candidate, WILL NOT be "able" to do anything because he has no chance of getting chosen. So what you "feel" is incorrect in this case.

Driver B will take the left longer road delaying your demise.
Driver C will take the right shorter road to the cliff and a quick end.

You know that many of the passengers believe that drivers B and C are the road to success. You are unwilling to vote for driver A because you feel that too many people may vote for driver C, bringing you to a quick end. So you vote for B.

Lesser evil is still a bad choice to me.
Enjoy the ride.

Sad, sad, sad. Is this what qualifies as debating skills at this point? Making inappropriate analogies to try and make a bullshit point?

You can't get away from the fact that one of two particular candidates will walk away with the win in this election. You can vote for Nader, you can vote for McCain, you can vote for Obama, you can vote for the Socialist party, you can write in someone, etc. It doesn't matter. In 2008, either Obama or McCain will win.

Both Obama and McCain are less-than-ideal, to put it mildly. NOTE: this does NOT mean any of the third-party candidates are any good. But if you like one less than the other -- let's call him candidate X -- then there is ONE WAY you can keep him out of office in 2008 -- by voting for the other candidate with a chance of winning. Voting for a 3rd party candidate, if you are trying to keep candidate X from winning, now THAT's throwing your vote away. If you're voting 3rd party in order to support 3rd party candidates in general or to show that you support their platform, that's fair enough. MY point was that such a principle shouldn't take priority over keeping the greater of two evils out of office.

Mitchell basically owned your entire point when he pointed out that for your BS analogy to be appropriate with respect to the actual situation at hand, your candidate 'A' would have to be effectively unable to take control of the van in nearly all scenarios.

The point is to logically refute the choice to use a vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

You can't. Not in the current situation. You have to make a case that the choice is for all intents and purposes between more than two candidates. You haven't made that case well and I submit that you will not.

63. New Simonyi Chair appointed

Comment #274066 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Does he have his own computer or will it function like Batman/Bruce Wayne? Never on the site at the same time?

Bats and Bruce Wayne HAVE been seen at the same time -- it helps with the secret identity thing. Of course, Bats in those cases was Dick Grayson or Clark Kent, usually.

64. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #274059 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 2:50 pm

He’s doing Spiderman 4 and 5

Goddammit. Oh well, I guess it's hard to be *worse* than Spiderman 3 so optimistically they WILL be and therefore be so bad they're entertaining.

65. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #274057 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm

When you sit by not asking any questions while a frog turns into a prince, you're accepting nonsense as sense.

I sat by not asking questions while watching Superman, Clash of the Titans, and Ninja Turtles, but that didn't mean I was accepting it as reality. Also, bear in mind that there's nothing "nonsensical" about fantasy provided it stays within the bounds it presents. (Thus, there is nonsense in The Matrix and not in Ninja Turtles, despite both being unrealistic.)

The problem is that we're accepting this stuff before we could ever figure out why its wrong.

Are we? For the most part, parents inform their children that fairy tales aren't real quite early in the whole story-telling process. It's highly unusual for children to *actually believe* in dragons because, unlike flying reindeer, they are presented as fantasy as opposed to fact (flying reindeer only later move to the 'fantasy' pile, once Santa is revealed to actually be dad and Rudolph to be a Ford Taurus).

Another "hunch" of mine in relation to this discussion is that unless children exercise their mind to think about reality vs non-reality, they will be less-equipped to make that distinction later in life than those that do. And the way to exercise making that distinction is to be confronted with non-reality and be told/shown that is is non-reality. Fairy tales, even dreams, and many other things provide us with the opportunity. That is not their purpose, but I think it is a useful side-effect.

66. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273985 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Standards only limit your options. Or so my college roommate used to say.

67. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273982 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 1:07 pm

mismos, indeed I don't have nearly enough enemies with an 'ies'. :-P

The avatar is a scary dude with a sword. It says 'warrior of vengeance' on the right. I drew it sometime ago. I like its color because it seems to go well enough with most internet forums.

^_^ I was just messing around, part of the whole flaming/spamming to 10000 I mentioned.

68. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273969 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Bots make stuff less fun. I'm sure we can flame and spam our way to 10,000 posts by Nov 4.

Reggae sux.

69. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273947 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 12:38 pm

A collection of monkeys typing randomly on keyboards?

1) Take a crap ton of monkeys and give each a typewriter.

2) After a while take their papers and find one that's the CLOSEST TO Shakespeare of them all (this is the tricky bit).

3) Then take that one paper and redistribute it to all the monkeys and have them perform random monkey edits to it.

4) Repeat steps 2-3 A LOT.

5) You has Shakespeare as written by monkeys.

6) You has an analogy for natural selection.

70. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273919 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Well, I doubt anyone will raise a hand for her.

I know someone who would. After all, elderly women need lovin' too, but pr0n is competing with them! In fact that's why sexbots were proposed to begin with... or maybe part of why. I forget.

By the way, if sexbots were around today, $10,000 says there'd be a Sarah Palin model available.

71. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273833 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 10:27 am

I have CS3 photoshop and illustrator.

I'm still using CS2 :-/ There's not a whole lot in CS3 that I'd find useful, though. I think. At least for what I do in PS. CS4 Extended looks to be pretty nice for integrating with 3D work, though. If I ever get into 3D work, I'll probably pick that up.

Yeah I don't think ImageReady lets you directly convert from video to animated gifs, so your method sounds very sensible. All I'd have done differently myself is just reduce the size from 166x116 to 100xwhatever so the file size is much smaller.

72. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273820 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 10:12 am

Maybe if Obama wins, he will help spread the sarcasm so unfortunate people who never got a chance to learn sarcasm can have a fair shot at learning it.

Are you being sarcastic there? I can't tell. I never got a chance to learn sarcasm.

73. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273814 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 10:02 am

Ah ok. Yeah, Adobe ImageReady is good in particular if you're drawing your own frames, since it's good for layer-to-frame mapping (links bidirectionally with Photoshop). And a lot of other stuff, I suppose. Pretty sweet program overall.

74. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273792 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 9:34 am

Oh wow yeah it's over 7 Megs... that's huge haha. I didn't notice because my connection here is blindingly fast, but yeah even for a "normal" high-speed connection that could be a bother I suppose, let alone a slow connection.

Back when I used to make animated gifs I would have issues with keeping them under 1Mb in size and still cool, but size makes a world of difference. If you cut your avatar down to about 1/3 the # of pixels it would probably make life easier... although it won't look as nice.

BTW sometimes a .sfw is smaller than the equivalent gif. I'm not sure why, exactly.

Do you use ImageReady?

75. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273784 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #273781 by Mitchell Gilks

Cool! So far this one is my fav avatar of yours... since Lucky Star is awesome. Only issue I have with your avatars is they seem to slow my IE (I dont use FF at work :-/) to a crawl if they're on-screen. My cursor gets all wonky and the scroll works like arse. Once your avatar moves off-screen it's smooth sailing again, go figure.

I got like a LOT of extra space on my websites so if you need something hosted and it's a pain to set up yourself I can probably do it if you email it to me.

76. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273775 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

Mitchell,

Lucky Star final episode dance practice, eh?

Wow you got the whole thing in there.

77. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273755 by Sciros on October 29, 2008 at 8:31 am

Sarmatae...

RE: 68. Comment #273579 by root2squared on October 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Ah. The lesser of two evils for you both. I see. Wasting a vote like that doesn't seem to very productive to me. To each their own though.

o.O It is thanks to people voting to keep the greater of the two evils OUT of office that you have the luxury of "not wasting your vote" (seriously, what?) and going with someone who's made like zero headlines.

Supporting 3rd party candidates is important, too, but I seriously don't think it should take priority over making sure the total wackjobs (see thread topic) stay out of office.

78. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #273317 by Sciros on October 28, 2008 at 2:25 pm

There was a 2-hour line at the voting booths yesterday in the "walk-in absentee voting" area for my county. Monday at 6pm, a 2-hour line.

Lots of people are voting this time.

I don't think McCain will win based on how many people are making the effort to go vote early, and the people I saw in the lines.

79. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #272522 by Sciros on October 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm

From DP...

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Interesting link. I read a good bit of it.

80. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272439 by Sciros on October 27, 2008 at 12:38 pm

How about all the mythology and/or "fairy tales" that you can't keep children away from even if you tried, like Pokemon, Superman, Spiderman, Star Wars, etc.

What we imagine, and what children imagine, I'm not sure even *can* be constrained by what "what we understand can and cannot truly exist given the laws of physics and nature."

I think Richard will find that the nourishment fantasy stories provide to childrens' imagination can well outweigh any ill effect on their rationality if the stories are not presented to children as indisputable fact the way religion is.

81. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270920 by Sciros on October 25, 2008 at 12:01 am

Dang I'm just glad I don't live in the Toledo area.

82. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270890 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Yep , count the number of people who login as root and browse the internet on linux/unix v/s the number of people who login as administrator and browse on a windows.

Indeed. Well a good argument in favor of Linux-based OSs even with regards to user error is that Windows systems (including Vista, but at least less so) make it much easier for the user to screw up with bad security practices. I mean sure, using weak passwords is bad regardless of what system you're on, but as far as allowing software to run in a highly-privileged mode when it's not supposed to, that's too easy to do in Windows without knowing it.

83. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270885 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Hi Steve!

I am afraid that my experience over decades has been the opposite. I have personally spent a lot of effort having to salvage projects that have got into deep trouble as a result of indifferent programmers writing awful code.

And I've had to rewrite from scratch services that were coded by people very proud of their programming abilities and wealth of experience. There's no rules to this. You can't say "people take more pride in it, so it ends up better," at least not with software because there's more to it than just the developers. Good developers and bad communication or bad management or bad requirements can give you huge problems, especially when it comes to security. I just think that the contrapositive of what you claimed, which would be that part of the reason Windows is less secure than Unix is that Windows developers are more indifferent to their work, is a very dodgy claim.

My point is not that Unix-based systems are more secure than Windows-based systems because they are being open source. It is that Unix-based systems are more secure because for decades they have been designed from the start for multiple user remote access.

Yes that's part of the reason, since it isolates users from files, etc. which affect the entire system.

Naah. Sorry. I have been closely involved in the IT industry, both full-time and part-time for close to 30 years. I have followed Windows and Unix and Mainframe OS security since the late 70s. I know what I am talking about from both industry reports and personal experience.

Well... fair enough, but you're not really contradicting what I'm saying so I guess we're in agreement. My point has been that the OS is not even the most vulnerable target when it comes to malware -- it's the user. You're trying to convince me that unix-based systems are inherently more secure than Windows. I didn't disagree with that! I merely said some of the reasons (which you didn't disagree with) and went on to point out that the OS isn't even the biggest problem for security -- it's bad security practices on the part of the users.

84. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270779 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Sorry, but I still think you are wrong. The reason is because of two factors: first the pride in their code of open source developers,

Come on, you know that's pure bollocks. OSS developers "take pride" in their code? Are you saying that commercial software is less secure because the developers don't take pride in it? Or that commercial software developers don't take pride in their code? That's, like, prejudice! Not to mention that pride has zero bearing on quality. I've seen people proud of rubbish code and I've seen humble or indifferent programmers write elegant, robust code.

and second, because of the number of people who are keen to search out bugs in open source code.

As opposed to the number of people keen to search out bugs in Microsoft code? MS taps into these people by exposing Windows RCs to them. Steve, I personally know people who work as software developers in testing at MS and their practices these days are extremely rigorous.

Within a company like Microsoft, there may be a few hundred developers working on a closed-source project. With Linux source, thousands of developers work on the code, and tens of thousands inspect that code and check it.

More people doesn't necessarily lead to better software. Plus, you've not actually contradicted what I have said with regards to the difference in the level of threat viruses pose today.

If you want to make a general case that OSS is more secure than proprietary software, that's one thing. Some studies have shown that to be the case, but it's still not a general rule and you ultimately have to perform evaluations of specific software to see whether that's the case for your particular need.

But if you want to make the case that Linux-based OSs are more secure than Windows by virtue of being open-source, you'll have to actually debunk other reasons that are already generally agreed-upon. Frankly I think it's a waste of your time, given that this issue has been looked at at length by so many already and they've concluded what I have told you.

Also, I'm a dev at a non-profit so you don't have to take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just giving you the facts.

85. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270749 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Steve, what you say is true, but to get back to the original question -- why is an anti-virus needed for Windows?

Well, I use it because I don't trust myself to be attentive enough ALL the time. Plus, I've turned off UAC because holy moley that thing is annoyingly set up (another legit criticism of Vista there, btw).

Were I to have a Linux box at home (I'll set one up soon, I think), I'd still consider not foregoing an anti-virus because I could transmit infected files from one Windows machine to another through my comp and I wouldn't want to do that. As for worrying about getting my own machine infected, like I said before, the still relatively low market penetration of Ubuntu and other Linux distos is what makes the number of viruses written to affect the OS so much lower than those written for Windows. Yes, they're likely harder to write at first (re-use ftw ^_^) but they can still be written. Altogether, viruses aren't that hard to write -- it's the social engineering involved in getting users to infect their machines where the real challenge lies, both for attackers and those interested in security.

86. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270740 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm

DarwinsPitbull, don't attribute other people's posts to me (even if I agree with them). I don't use the word "bravo" (it's just not my style). I'd just have asked you to stop demonstrating you willful ignorance because we've already seen it a thousand times or so and are already thoroughly impressed at its resilience.

Of course due diligence is hardly par for the course for you, so whatever. Put anyone's name above quotes you like!

87. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270734 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Yes, it really is. You can't get better testing that from people who can see the source code.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both white-box and black-box testing. You need enough of both for something like an OS.

Microsoft has been releasing versions of Windows for testing for decades but still requires third-party software for security. That is simply inexcusable.

No, it doesn't require it for security. A smart user running an unpatched Windows with no firewall, no encryption, and no anti-virus will be safer than an idiot running a new Linux distro with a firewall, encryption, etc. You can have the most impenetrable lock on a door but in order for it to work the door must still be closed. An anti-virus program will make a bigger difference for a stupid user than a smart one, but it doesn't make the user any smarter so the biggest security risk remains.

I'm not really throwing opinions out here, this has all been demonstrated many times. I know you're pro-open source (I'm ok with a combination of commercial and OSS), but that doesn't mean you have to disagree with me because the same security principles apply across the board for all OSs. There isn't a different set of security best practices for Windows than there is for Unix-based systems.

Here's an interesting story that reiterates what I've explained.

88. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270720 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 2:10 pm

it is constantly spying on you, checking your softwares are legit, etc.

Hahah well then it's been going crazy spying on my computer. The ratio of illegitimate to legitimate software on it is probably 3.

Anyway if you have the space and memory to spare, who cares? There's no point to having unused RAM. I'm cool if it uses 100% of it as long as it's responsive.

There is a lot of built-in DRM-enabling software in Vista, which is a Bad Thing, and I won't defend it because I despise DRM in all its incarnations. But from my experience that's not a good enough reason to avoid the OS. After all, DRM is predominately a problem for people who, um, pay to download media or use their PC as their primary DVD player. The fact that Vista doesn't scale to many hardware setups is the #1 reason to avoid it IMO. Well, no, that's #2. #1 is the exorbitant price of the OS if you build your own machine and want to legitimately acquire an OS for it (I've stopped building my own rigs ever since I noticed it doesn't save me any money but does take up a lot of free time).

89. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270716 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Yeah, DX10 makes a world of difference for games.

90. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270714 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I disagree, and I have good evidence that user experience does not matter.

Are you going to say that user error isn't the largest security risk? I'm fairly certain that there is much evidence to the contrary.

Personal experience such as yours does mean something, but I have some of my own. Places that employ literally hundreds (like, 400-800) people who are not computer savvy using PCs and there have been 0 instances of attacks or viruses since them moving from Solaris. This is because the people are forced into using good security practices whether they know it or not.

It really isn't that the Unix systems have different vunerabilities - it is that they are fundamentally more secure than windows.

Those go hand-in-hand ^_^ By the way, Vista and XP SP2 are really quite secure and I believe have had fewer successful attacks than Mac OS (unix-based). I'm not sure how they compare to open Linux distros in terms of that... there was probably a story or two on Slashdot but I've forgotten.

And the reason unix systems are "fundamentally" more secure is *not* the number of developers working on them, but their core architecture. Microsoft releases RCs (release candidates) of Windows to plenty of people for testing, anyway. It's not lack of discovery that's the problem.

91. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270698 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Steve,
Well for starters, Ubuntu users are still more savvy than the majority of Windows users and user error is by far the biggest reason security is ever compromised.

I also didn't say viruses can be written with equal ease for every OS. It's true that Windows-type viruses are much less likely to affect linux-based systems because of their underlying architecture, but all that means is the vulnerabilities linux OSs have are different. And even so let's face it -- viruses are easier to write than a lot of other software.

In the end, most viruses still rely on non-savvy users to grant malicious software privileges they can't otherwise acquire. Unix-based OSs are still not widespread enough for it to be worthwhile.

Users remain the single most important and weakest line of defense against malware, and that alone is a good reason why there are so much fewer linux viruses than Windows. But Vista altogether is quite secure and you basically have to make a big security mistake in order to get your machine infected.

Mitchell,
Does it nag you often about updating the license? I think once you update it you'll be left alone for the better part of a year.

92. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270688 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Why should an operating system require 3 flipping gigabytes to run decently? That is complete madness. I have Vista on a 2GB portable and it regularly becomes unusable due to lack of memory.

This is a serious drawback of Vista. It came to the show way too early given its "true" minimum hardware requirements. It needs to scale better.

I was also a bit annoyed that Microsoft re-wrote the core of Windows to produce Vista, but it still needs virus protection. Ubuntu needs no such software.

Security through obscurity. Any OS with such a large install base with a large number of decidedly non-savvy users will find itself the target of malicious software. One can write a virus for any OS, there are just not enough vectors of attack for it to be a worthwhile enterprise for anything but Windows.

Mitchell

Yeah, I hate having to get virus protection. I'm using freeware, and it runs out in less than a week. I need to get around to replacing it.

There is a handful of good free virus protection software out there that only asks you to re-acquire a license once per year. I use Avast, which so far has kept me virus-free ever since I started using it 3 years ago.

93. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270667 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm

mitch, it's PC hardware. HP, to be precise. Processor is Intel, RAM is... I don't remember, and graphics card is a GeForce 8800 GTS.

I don't think there's anything about a Mac that would have it run Vista more smoothly than a PC, especially now that Macs are also Intel-based.

94. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270660 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

1) I am comfortable in my skin.

Sure you are. I can tell by the effort you put into deluding yourself so that you can be comfortable with it.

The stuff you say means nothing to me. You think I have an ego, ok. You think I am greedy, ok. You think I am evil, ok. You think I am mean, ok.

Self-victimization again. It doesn't end. You even add in "evil" and "mean" just to make yourself feel better. No, DP, I don't just "think" you're greedy and egocentric, I know it. Every post you make adds to the overwhelming evidence that such is the case.

2) I dont ignore the constitution, libs do. Prove me wrong. Where does it say that you can take from person X and give it to person Y. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you think you are so right. Like I said, it doesn't say that in the constitution, it says it in the communist manifesto.

Look at the link HungarianElephant posted. Read it. Read it and tell us what you think it means, and whether you disagree with the fact that it amounts to taking from everyone and giving to everyone (which is taking from person x and giving to person y). This is exactly like the problem you had with Russia being part of Eastern Europe -- you couldn't comprehend it. Utter willful ignorance.

mitch,

Sciros, I don't mean to get down to semantics here, but I'm positive (given the length of his post) vocal garbage was being strewn across a New York computer screen inside five minutes after my post.

Fair enough. ^^

95. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270647 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 11:52 am

This is like talking to a religious fundamentalist who keeps trying to say that all atheists are racists so they should STFU about him being racist, which he clearly is.

In other words, blatantly lying and throwing out false accusations in order to justify his own morally questionable position.

Do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better, DarwinsPitbull. You've no more respect to lose.

Steve,

It would nice to have something that would run Vista reasonably.

Vista cannot scale to non-high-end hardware well, but if you have a beefy enough rig it will run Vista fine. I have a machine with a quad-core CPU with 3GB of RAM and a powerful graphics card running Vista, and I've found it to be more stable than even XP SP2.

96. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270642 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 11:40 am

mitch, you were off by about 25 minutes.

DarwinsPitbull, I've already said that your stubborness and willful ignorance help you ignore anything people (myself included) mentioned about contributing to those less-fortunate *in addition* to paying taxes. It will help you ignore links to sections of the U.S. Constitution that contradict your delusions. It will help you feel better about yourself. Nothing anyone writes will change what you repeat over and over, because you need to repeat it over and over in order to delude and make yourself feel comfortable with your egocentrism and greed.

You stoop to outright lying in order to continue deluding yourself. I'm not surprised. I maintain that you will never be able to post anything that contradicts the fact that you're nothing but a selfish, greedy man.

Wah wah you dont find me respectable. My life is falling apart now. I was called greedy and egocentric by someone who can't name anything he does to help people except pay taxes. wah wah

And you continue to victimize yourself. By the way, I named it a few hundred posts ago. It doesn't matter whether you read it or not, because it's clear you'll just keep repeating the same rhetoric you've been saying over and over regardless. Your sarcastic smugness does not conceal your need for self-justification well.

97. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270611 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 10:46 am

My point still remains that you believe its [sic] right to take from one person to give to another. I would ask you where that is mentioned in the constitution, buts [sic] its [sic] not. It is only mentioned in the communist manifesto.

Again, you distort and paint a disingenuous picture because you can't otherwise justify your own egoistic position. HungarianElephant pointed out that you're lying about the Constitution. Plus, the fact is, people *vote* to pay taxes that fund social welfare programs. That means people *willingly contribute* to them. Majority rules, so more people are gladly paying for those welfare programs than there are people who grudgingly give away money that benefits anyone but themselves. The latter is people like you.

But I keep asking that question because I want to know what you people actually do to help poor people.

You keep asking it because you want to pretend that we all wouldn't do anything if the government didn't make us (like you with taxes, since you make it quite clear you wouldn't vote for any new ones to fund welfare programs). You want to believe that we're all as greedy and egocentric as you.

We all pay taxes so I am just as much as [sic] a great person as you.

Exactly as I've already pointed out, you are trying to rationalize that you're not especially greedy, selfish, and egocentric. Well, we vote *for* taxes to fund social programs. You, on the other hand, make it quite clear that if you could opt out of paying taxes, you would, so that you could keep all your money to yourself.

But I am seen as not having empathy and sympathy for these people but what do any of you do for them? Oh thats right, you pay taxes and are for wealth redistribution.

And in one fell swoop you contradict anything you tried to get across when you said "we both pay taxes." You make it abundantly clear that you wouldn't pay them if you didn't have to. That you vote against raising funds for social programs. That we, by voting for them, make you grudgingly give away money you'd rather keep to yourself.

Your greed and egocentrism are not uncommon. I know people like you. There is nothing respectable about them.

98. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270579 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 9:58 am

1) I don't play the victim, you people do.

The stubbornness I mentioned. DP, you play the victim every day here. You try to provoke attacks and then point fingers. You play the victim. Pathetically, but you do.

2) All libs have are emotional responses. Whether its about taxes, welfare or military. Thats all I hear from people here.

The willful ignorance I mentioned.

3) If I am greedy than [sic] what does that make you.

We are independent of your pathological greed.

Like I have said before, libs feel good just because they pay taxes. Well way to go, pat yourself on the back for that and I will also because i pay taxes.

The virtual masturbation I mentioned. The way you rationalize to make yourself seem morally superior in your eyes only betrays the weakness of your position.

Now tell me how much of your weekly paycheck you give to the poor and unfortunate besides taxes.

You have asked this of people multiple times already, and every time the answer has been *something,* if even voting for more taxes in order to fund new/improved welfare programs. But that is beside the point. In every case, it is evident that it is more than you will ever willingly contribute. But your stubborness and willful ignorance will continue to keep you believing that nobody contributes anything, and therefore you can be comfortable with your egocentrism.

I'll repeat it, I have seen no post from DarwinsPitbull that would contradict what I submit as fact -- he is afflicted by pathological greed that he's trying to rationalize here in order to continue feeling good about himself.

--
EDIT: Bonzai, I don't know if anyone assumed DP was rich (I don't read every post). But it's clear he's egocentric and greedy to an enormous fault. One doesn't need to have a lot of money to have a love of money.

99. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270562 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 9:36 am

Mitchell, what are your thoughts on Hime from Yozakura Quartet (new anime) as far as "fighting girls" go?

Let's see... there's also... Melissa Mao from Full Metal Panic! -- she's badass as heck, but in a realistic way.

100. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #270559 by Sciros on October 24, 2008 at 9:31 am

It's those reactions that DarwinsPitbull is going for. He provokes people so that he can victimize himself here and feel better about himself and where he stands. It's not an uncommon tactic.

He needs to help himself believe that liberals are as evil as fringe right-wing rhetoric claims, so he tries to elicit emotional responses by making insulting and extraordinary claims about all liberals. It says a lot more about him than it does about those who respond to him.

I have seen no post from DarwinsPitbull that would contradict what I submit as fact -- he is afflicted by pathological greed that he's trying to rationalize here in order to continue feeling good about himself.