Mine is the emblem of Theosophy. I like it because blue and orange is my favourite combination of colors and it has many beautiful symbols in it:
The Omkar, the Swastika, the Ouroboros, the Magen David and the Ankh. Too bad they didn't include the Taijitu as well...
I also like the motto of the Theosophical Society because I don't think we are capable of perceiving absolute truth. We are trapped inside our bodies and can't perceive what they aren't able to perceive, and on another level we are trapped inside our universe, so we can only derive our knowledge based on what's "inside" this universe. There's no contrast. (or maybe it's even worse and you're just a "brain" in a tube and reality is an illusion?) In any case, the eternal truth should be way beyond all of that.
Mysticism/Religion is an attempt to uncover that truth (or pretend it has already been uncovered), which I think is nothing but a fool's errand. We have to accept our limits, there are infinitely many things we cannot and will never know. I feel like people who believe in religions are generally in denial about that. (As are some people who overrate what science can do. It cannot uncover the real truth, it can just uncover mechanisms that "work". F.e. if A always triggers B and B triggers Z, then science could conclude that A triggers Z. It'd be a working theory, but it isn't the truth. Or the truth is A=B*C+-D*E+-.... and science finds A=B*C because D*E is so small that it's impossible for now to measure. It means using A=B*C works, but it isn't the truth)
I don't think catching Missingno is the most impressive thing about this run at all. I evolved my Missingno on a real GameBoy years ago into Kangaskhan or turned it into Rhydon, way before I knew about TASing. A wild Mew is also pretty old by now, so I wouldn't pick that as a screen shot either. Catching Mewtwo with an ordinary pokeball and full energy was also possible on GameBoy after about 256 resets (iirc, in any case nothing against manipulating a shiny, omg >_>). None of these screens would show to what degree this game has been broken imo.
The thing that's actually impressive is planning the route around the special stats of the pokemon you meet along the way and manipulate their DVs to catch each pokemon in the perfect place. Insane luck manipulation and genious route planning is what makes this run so special. Unfortunately, that can't be captured on screen too well, so I'd go with the Seen:151 Owned:151 screen in the hall of fame. Even though you can get that screen without catching hardly any pokemon at all too iirc, I still think the final time is the most impressive aspect of this run that can be captured on screen, so I'd go with that.
I might be representing a minority here though.
I'm sorry you decided to read my post. I was having a light fever when I wrote it, so I'm not sure if you should take it too seriously.
The movie industry could still make money off advertisments / product placement they've decided to put in. They could also make money off voluntary donations that fans make (f.e. buying the product even though they could get it for free) in hopes of them producing another awesome movie. If you watch it in the cinema you get a unique experience and if you buy the original DVD you get a neat shiny box and maybe a little gimmick, so there's still motivation for that. Some of the most loyal donators could get selected at random and get some very special benefits, there are many possibilites.
Wow. Thank God I decided to watch this on emulator where I could make use of the ff button. Are you guys sure none of the lengthy rare candy sequences could have been sped up by catching more pokémon on level 1? I guess you are. I'm sure an insane amount of planning has went into this run. Voting yes.
Voting no because this run would be easily improvalbe by picking Squirtle as your starter and its goals are way too arbitrary.
Just kidding of course. I'm eagerly awaiting an encode. :D
the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed
I hardly know anything about the law, but "copies that have not been commercially distributed" to me means that it makes broadcasting TASes a criminal offense because ROMs are copies that have not been commercially distributed and a TAS is a public demonstration of such a copy? I think this law really doesn't affect SDA or most other forms of public broadcasting of games though (nor would it affect console-verification movies). Then again, what do I know? In any case, for some strange reason this has caused me to write the following quite eccentric paragraphs that I'd now rather post than delete. You'd best ignore them.
Are the new Dark Ages of the internet slowly approaching?
Copyright is just too silly a law in our day and age imo. I know with it come huge benefits, but on the other hand it's just part of human nature to pass on interesting information, be it through language, the arts or the internet. It's precisely that aspect of our nature which has enabled us to rise from being simple hunters and gatherers all the way up, to the top of the animal kingdom. Restricting the population in that part of their natural behavior is authoritarian, it is undignifying and on the whole completely counterproductive to our further cultural development. History shows us that very evidently. History, that past generations have passed on to us in good faith, so that we can learn from it and avoid repeating their same mistakes. We must not ignore their wisdom, for it is to betray our deepest roots. We must not, under any circumstances, allow the rise of the new Dark Ages, and we must certainly not endure any form of censorship at all.
I'd rather have this century be the end of the movie/music industry as it used to be than the elaboration of a new form of censorship. The notion that the owner of the material would completely lack the power to globally allow everybody to copy and use their work on top the copyright law that's already in place is just completely insane imo.
How long is it going to be till our genetic information is owned by somebody else and we have to ask for their permission to pass it on? Well, that's probably going to be once the first genetic engineering companies are allowed to modify the genes of our children... Under the current circumstances, I am not certain at all whether my grandchildren will be the owners of their own DNA, whether they'll be able to freely choose their partners, whether they'll be able to freely choose their professions or if they'll be simply designated. That future frightens me...
Any form of copyright restriction brings us one step closer to exactly that future. The only solution is to make the right to copy any form of information a fundamental human right. The only way to achieve that is to establish a global government of the people, not that of some powerful lobbyists. The only ones who are capable of doing that is us. The future is in our hands.
The original topic seemed like a rather casual one anyway. I'd have been for just deleting the posts or taking no action at all. This topic here serves no purpose and shouldn't exist or at least be locked imo.
The idea to fly there with the chicken is old, what's new is clipping through walls by swinging your sword and then putting it away. The acute angle glitch doesn't work anymore. Chicken dive doesn't work either anymore because they put a rock there at daytime to block the entrance. (however, it's gone at night, so you can also use the new navi dive)
If you don't think the government is doing its job (representing public interest), then the solution is not to get rid of it or make it smaller, but to fix it. If the FDA isn't doing its job, then likewise. I'd argue that the wars the US is in atm are primarily in corporate/imperialist interest. Can you blame faulty government for it? No, I don't think so because a large part of the population thinks these wars are necessary to keep the world a safe place. Is it faulty government if they get rid of business regulations? No, because a large part of the public believe it's in their best interest if the global market is as free as possible. Indeed, a freer market enables large companies to make larger profits, but I doubt it's in the public's best interest if that increase in profit doesn't come from them improving their products and services, but from making them worse (in terms of overall good they do to the global population). Does the public care if bailouts are pretty much unconditional (too big to fail) so it suddenly becomes ok for everyone to do over-the-top risky business? No, I don't think so either.
If you want to change anything, smaller government will probably only make matters worse. If you want to fix your government and its institutions, you have to first educate the public so that it can take stances that are truly beneficial to themselves, else I fear it's impossible. If nobody cares, nothing's going to change. If everybody cares, everything is going to change. The real problem is the public and its lack of interest in real world affairs, not some kind of evil conspiracy.
The Department of Education is the only agency that possibly could be for educating the public for their own best interest (as opposed to f.e. teaching them why a free market philosophy is best, which is primarily in corporate interest). It could also help to make good education more publicly accessible, which I think should be in our every interest. If you don't think the Department of Education does its job properly, that doesn't mean you should try to get rid of it.
Fluoride can inhibit the growth of certain microorganisms (or force them to mutate to be more fluoride-tolerant). Do I want to inhibit the growth of cariogenic bacteria in my mouth? Yes, so I use fluoridated tooth paste and fluoridated mouth rinse. Do I generally want to expose my whole body to fluoride? No, I don't think I want to generally inhibit the growth of microorganisms in my body elsewhere. I agree it should be everybody's free decision if they want to consume fluoridated water or not. I don't think it would have any serious effects on my health, but I expect fluoridated water over only using fluoridated dental hygiene products to rather have very minor negative effects on my health than positive ones. Can fluoride be used to control my mind? No, I don't think so. Can fear over a giant evil government conspiracy be used to control my mind? Yes, I do think so. It would help some pretty powerful people to slowly get rid of any form of government that doesn't act exclusively in their interest altogether.
I really hope America isn't on the way of an armed civil war in the future. The polarization of patriotism vs "conspiritism" really worries me. I don't believe a civil war would be in best public interest. All the public needs is a change in attitude imo.
Regarding autism, it's always on the rise, just because it gets more and more popular as a diagnosis. It's only defined by its symptoms and recent development goes into a direction where even if not all of them are present, people can still be diagnosed as having mild autism. As the diagnosis becomes more tolerable and popular, apperantly the number of autistic individuals increases, but it could very well just be an illusion. Autism is most likely to be like cancer in that it can have multiple causes that would be classified as sepereate diseases if we knew more about it. Also, there are many things that can cause people to act a bit like autists, without them actually being mentally ill. But since autism is only defined by its symptoms, they could still be diagnosed. To statistically link an increase in autistic individuals to any other recent developments without causal evidence is idiotic imo.
The problem with the idea to shut down an institution and then replace it is that it comes from the idea that the people inside that institution are to blame. I don't think so. If external circumstances force them to act in the public's best interest, then it doesn't matter how evil they supposedly are. If the public actually cares, then they'll have their way. There's no need to change anything but the public stance imo. If a government institution has to become corrupt just to survive, then I'd be for reducing the amount of taxes that go into the defense budget and use that money to finance that organization instead. For that to be possible, the majority of the public only has to care and be seriously for it and it will be done.
Kazooie = awesome
Link to videoLink to video
Edit: Btw, Bottle B an RBA are confirmed and there's a nice glitch that enables you to use any restricted item anywhere.
Pretty cool, considering for how short a period of time the game has been out. ^^
http://forums.zeldaspeedruns.com
There is a difference between (definitely) believing that there are no sentient planets and not (not necessarily) believing that there are sentient planets. The second just refers to the absence of a belief, while the first declares one.
My point is that it's useless to make assumptions without any evidence. Just stick to known facts, that's the most practical way.
But that's precisely what you didn't do here. I've bolded out your assumptions without evidence, where you didn't just stick to know facts, in the quote below that moozooh has replied to:
Warp wrote:
You seem to give nature some kind of sentience and will, like it's a benevolent being who tries to protect and benefit us, as long as we obey nature. Nature/evolution does not "mean" to do anything. Nature is. It doesn't have sentience or will.
Actually there is no particular scientific reason nature can't have developed a form of sentience.
Actually there is: Lack of evidence.
I guess moozooh is merely saying it's unreasonable to rule out the possibility. Lack of evidence makes it unreasonable to believe in it to be true, but it doesn't mean it's reasonable to act as if you knew for sure that it can't be true.
Warp wrote:
In fact, as long as there's nothing of that, it's more reasonable to assume it's not true (because assuming it's true leads nowhere and is only wasted effort with no benefit).
You're subtly imposing a false dichotomy here (either you have to assume it's true, or you have to assume it isn't). It's most reasonable to just assume it's possible, but there's presently no way for us to find out if it's true or not.
You can't even say it's still more likely to be false. What do you know about the likelihood of such things? We know hardly anything at all about consciousness. Maybe a universe in which planets are conscious is more likely to exist than other types of universes? How would we know?
Of course it's still unreasonable to make blind assumptions, but that goes for both directions.
The book costs $30, but if it actually works, it'll be $30 well spent.
And if it doesn't, you have successfully wasted both money and time. Not only that, you will believe in and try the next 'possible cure' that you come across too. They'll all be frauds and if by some miracle (that isn't linked to the treatment at all) the cancer gets cured, somebody has just earned a good candidate for their next documentary. If no miracle occurs, then you'd just have wasted a lot of money and time. My aunt has paid 300€ a few weeks ago for some magical numbers and countless pages of pseudo-scientific explanations for why they are so magical, which when she meditates over them for long enough will get rid off all of her problems. (before that she was really into quantum healing and prior to that she had a living on light phase) She's been looking for an esoteric remedy for her problems for years now, instead of actually dealing with the reality of her situation. How should she know the next thing she comes across doesn't work before she's seriously tried it? While there's no way to know for sure, logic dictates that if there was some magical cure to cancer or to her problems, then over time everybody would know about it. If hardly anybody knows about it (yet) (and it smells like fraud), then it's simply not reasonable to waste your time with it, even if there's a microscopically small chance that it actually might work. It's not unlike a gambling addiction. It's not smart to play roulette at any time, nor is it smart to buy that book for $30 at any time.
Although, when it comes to heavy chemo, I must say I'd probably rather die than go through it myself. I wouldn't be looking for a mystical cure though. That's just wishful thinking and being in denial. Still, hope can sometimes have very positive effects on your health. I wouldn't give up hope. But I wouldn't need to look for a cure for that, I'd just hope to be lucky.
@Brandon: The way to fix government institutions that don't work in your interest is to make people aware of it and become politically active (and propose solutions instead of just spreading hate for the organization). If you abolish them, who else is going to represent your interest? A good way to make institutions like that work more in your interest is to make them receive more tax payer money. If there's no government at all, I guarantee you it's in best corporate interest that you learn why exactly their products are so good for you and for you to become addicted to everything.
Derakon wrote:
Wikipedia has an article on water fluoridation that you might want to read. At least the introduction. Short version: it works to prevent tooth decay
Wouldn't many mildly poisonous substances work to prevent tooth decay? Does that mean it's a good idea? How much money (and publicity) does it save for corporations who want to get rid of their fluoride as an industrial waste product? Wouldn't a study that guarantees fluoride is preventing tooth decay (which surely, it does because it kills bacteria) have come in handy for them? Just some questions to think about. I don't think it's THAT bad for your health, but it'd certainly be putting a minor strain on my body and I'd rather go without. Putting fluoride into tooth paste I find quite reasonable though.
The way to counteract corruption is a strong government that actually acts more in the interest of its people as opposed to corporate interest. If you don't trust the FDA, then you're probably looking for that.
[/URL]