InternetTherapist

As a certified internet therapist I feel I should point out that neo-mania isn't really a part of our "modern times" in the sense that the modern popularization of internet social networks and YouTube and general internet activities is not very connected to hardware performance. It is possible for the web to start requiring, or at least making more use of fast computers with things like WebGL and SVG with shaders, those can be quite slow if you don't have a modern machine. I'm not sure how fast gradient meshes render, they might also take a good computer if they have a lot of edges, I hope W3S adds support for them to SVG soon, assuming they haven't already.

With as many variables as there are in which console is the better console I highly doubt they somehow all even out perfectly. Obviously the issue isn't black and white, none of them "suck" or would really be a bad buy, but some are better than others, and that often comes down to personal opinion. The best way to figure out what somebody will like more is to look into prerequisites, such as if they buy movies often or if they like online gaming. Its 3.2 GHz PPC Tricore (Six thread) is hardly that outdated, but I agree that the 360 isn't "next gen", although neither is the PS3, it's already out, the PS3 is not the generation after the PS3, thus it can't be next gen. And it goes without saying that the Wii isn't next gen, set your monitor to 800x600, and look at how horrible it looks, that's a higher resolution than the Wii. PS3 has a 1 year no dust warranty, 3 month with dust warranty. 360 has a 3 year RROD warranty and 1 year warranty. Also note the PS3 has disk read errors which cost $150 to be repaired from Sony unless you're under the 3 month no dust warranty, in which case you're covered, but if you're past the 3 months but under the 1 year then you need to open up the case to clean the lense which is pretty much always caused by dust, thus voiding your 1 year warranty. Well, it's not so much that the read speed is a huge problem, the problem is more in the amount of data they have to get off of the massive disk. Although the only way this would really effect somebody is possibly longer load times or forced installs, which can be a minor pain, but it's not a game breaker.

I believe the 360 has a larger install base than the PS3, well, I know it does in the US, but I know nothing of its current sales speed, I would assume the 360 has sort of slowed down in sales as it has a large install base as it did come out first. Developers for the PC can more easily port their game to the 360 than the PS3, as the 360 has more of a PC like design when it comes to RAM, GPU, CPU balance. Blu-Ray disk are slow reading, and as far as Blu-Ray players go the PS3 is not a very good choice if you were to compare it to stand-alone ones. Disk based storage is great but there is a large move towards the cloud and also internet distributions, so a super massive ROM system like Blu-Ray isn't necessarily going to help gaming, although like I said, people who aren't into online gaming are more likely to want some more general purpose use to their console, so the PS3 has that. But really, PSN is pretty terrible, the community, mic owners, numbers of properly configured mics, number of new users who are new to online gaming, general conversational skills of its users, lack of private chat, lack of party chat, poor invite system, lack of a large online game library, the list goes on and on and for online gaming the PS3 isn't that great. And Home is more of a casual user type of thing, which is another reason why I say if he's into online gaming he should pick the 360, Home isn't that much fun.

To an extent you can always understand how something works via figuring out what each part does, it would most likely need some type of power I'm sure we could tell where that is, all you would really need is to know what each part is. You might not know how a PCI port works but I'm sure you know how to hook something up to it. Its just a guess, but suppose they did have something, its all speculation, but we would be talking about a technological gap of possibly several hundred to several thousands of years or more. Could possibly composed of materials that are completely unknown composition, not even on the periodic table of elements, and runs on a power source that they have no idea how it functions. They try to take some plasma torches to cut into floor of the inside of it just to find they they are ineffective, diamond tip saw is also a no go. And its full capabilities probably wouldn't be obvious either, and no real indication as to what those are. They take a look inside and there are no buttons, levers, or switches, or anything they could recognize as a pilots controls. They would be forced to just store the thing in a warehouse underground somewhere and at best get someone with some new ideas to go in and take a look every now and then. For all they know the thing runs on telepathy, and you have to be one of them to operate or get any response from it. What they would be looking at would essentially be very alien to them. And I doubt any science fiction book could help them out. Maybe they could get something from it, but then again it could be also be so many thousands of years more advanced it would be like giving an FA-22 raptor to a cave man. The laws of physics wouldn't be any different for aliens than for us, they wouldn't have magic particles. The most advanced system they would ever use would be made up of living cells or generally self-replicating and containing parts, this would be more advanced than anything we have, and we do not have the ability to really alter and remake things like that yet, and if we're talking blood flow or photosynthesis or something like that, well, we can't really plug that into a laser weapon or car now can we. You can say that there could be something even more advanced than that but they aren't going to have smaller atoms than we have, so no, that's about the best as you can get as far as computers and such. However any system of energy, electric energy output and or other types of energy we currently use, well, there would be an output to those and we could suit that output to go to whatever we wanted, for the most part. An energy system which is not based on systems we see in living things would be fairly adaptable and understandable, although we might wind up destroying it and possibly a city/the earth with it if we tried to take it apart to understand its workings and possibly make more. Being an Internet Therapist I am highly knowledgeable on the subjects of aliens and theoretical science.

The reverse is true, I don't fully know how the rules should be, or rather, how they currently are, as they're not fully explained. I've not come in here and asked for them to be changed, I have simply asked how they currently are, how much they cover, and given examples of how they could turn out to be if they were to be explained further. The rules don't fully define what religion is, which leaves that totally up to interpretation, and can be offensive to people who's religion isn't a very commonly known one, such as ones which involve aliens and mythical creatures and such. But yes, I have also questioned the motive and intent behind the rule at least once, but that wasn't my main goal in posting, I just don't quite see how something can be banned because it CAN cause inappropriate behavior, which only serves to punish and forbade legitimate debate or side-argument, whereas flaming, baiting and trolling already is banned as it is. Although I can imagine how religion can spark more heated debates, maybe even flame-wars, but the cause of that is due to personal identification with ones religion or lack of religion to an extent where they cannot fully debate it, in other words, ignorance; we're banning debate because we find it acceptable or too common for people to be ignorant. That's sort of like banning foreigners from entering a country because most citizens are ignorant; the reason they're ignorant is because there aren't enough foreigners. If a bunch of ignorant people want to fight over something then I say so be it, nobody is being forced to go into a thread about it and maybe they'll learn something, although changing a thread not really about religion into a religious debate is changing the subject/going off topic, which is already against the rules, or at least I would assume so.

The problem with religion threads is that people who don't believe in it will debate the merits of it, and that is bad because some people cross the line, thus everybody should be punished. The problem with evolution threads is that people who don't believe in it will debate the merits of it, and that is bad because some people cross the line, thus everybody should be punished. The problem with fairy/unicorn/alien/conspiracy theory/monster/ghost/miracle/etc threads is that people who don't believe in it will debate the merits of it, and that is bad because some people cross the line, thus everybody should be punished, or at least that's the general logic of this rule. The problem with every possible topic of debate threads is that people who don't agree with eachother will debate it, and that is bad because some people cross the line, thus everybody should be punished, or at least that's the general logic of this rule. Evolutionists believe that we evolved from smaller creatures, and threads about evolution or which imply evolution is real, like the big bang, are allowed. Creationists believe that the world was made by God, and threads about creationism are banned. Some people believe we were made by aliens, should threads about aliens banned also? Can I say "I think its unlikely we were made by aliens." and list reasons why or is that too close to religion? Point is that the religion rule should cover anti-religion or anti-creationist threads also, or the rule should be taken down, either one. I just don't see why theists have to be tempted into replying to threads about evolution and science and such and how they can't make their own, and the only answer to allowing them to make those threads while keeping this rule in place is to keep people of opposing views from expressing them in said threads, thus making the whole point of any thread about those subjects kind of pointless. It seems to me that if somebody makes a topic about religion or evolution they're deciding that they're willing to allow it to be debated, as this is the debate board. If somebody doesn't want to see their religion debated then they shouldn't go into a thread about it. If religion comes up in a thread not about it then that's changing the subject and isn't allowed anyway, no need for a new rule about it. tl;dr Topics which imply things like the big bang are true also imply that most religions are false, why should theists have to sit back and watch as people say their religion is false, whereas they can't say that theirs is true, it's a one sided jab and I find it cruel to them.

To an extent you can always understand how something works via figuring out what each part does, it would most likely need some type of power I'm sure we could tell where that is, all you would really need is to know what each part is. You might not know how a PCI port works but I'm sure you know how to hook something up to it.

All is me, I am, I don't get it, I hope that you have some kind of point to this which is related to the big bang. It's like me saying "The world is in and of itself for it is", it sounds deep and meaningful to me in the sense that it's hard to understand, but it doesn't seem to really mean anything. What? What? What? Otherwise what? Otherwise, if I take offence at somebody being alive? What?

So in other words Atheists are free to talk about science and evolution and such in a non-debating-vs-Creationism way, but the reverse cannot be done, Theists cannot talk about their religion. I find that to be unfair, although I am Atheist. Also, what starts a "Religious debate" can also be started if any topic is about faith vs non-faith, such as aliens, mythical creatures, magic, etc. In other words the problem is that this rule does not fully stop the debate board from debating, which seems to be the point of it, sort of like how rocks can be used to kill people so we must ban rocks. So, lets say that the rule is changed to not be so Anti-Theist, lets say that it's made so that Theists can't post in Atheist or Non-Creation-Science threads, and visa-versa; doesn't that seem a little absurd? A debate board where opposing views are kept out? Threads are designed so that only people who agree can be in them, and yet still somehow "debate" something? But that's not the point, point is that it's unfair towards Theists and that a lot of other topics are very highly related to this rule, yet are not covered by it.

Nobody is denying that they're out there, well, I haven't seen anybody do so, but as you said the universe is MASSIVE, they have to be out there, but it's very very highly unlikely that any signal or even light from earth has reached them yet, they can't see what hasn't gotten to them yet, so as I always say unless they made us and have been here all along then no, aliens most likely do not know about us. Although I don't believe they made us, but it is possible.

This thread is about science and scientific theory, not sarcastic remarks.

I did try to find that article you were talking about, I did Google it, but I couldn't find it, maybe you should've given me a link. So I used short summery of my opinion, in picture form, which is that I don't think so, Tim, I don't see why that's so terrible. And it's not like all my post had was that picture, I did reply to something else, and in text form, I don't see how that makes me a child or how that means I have something called ADHS which I've never heard of. Lets try to stay on topic. So you read an article on the internet about wizards and fairies and unicorns, that's great, I don't believe it and I don't believe who wrote it, it hasn't been proven and I highly doubt it's possible, I don't think you should use it in a debate.

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9820/francisu.jpgI hate internet polls.

It's right there on page 10, you can't miss it. I don't mind people double posting, It's not a serious problem, I just wanted to bring it to your attention so that a mod doesn't do so in the future. http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/5025/tthinksotim.jpg

But what I dislike about the alien answer is that it is deus ex, we have one answer which is possible, and we've seen people do things like that before elsewhere, and we have another which introduces something which doesn't seem to be real and says "It would've been easier if this thing did it.". We could say that they had learned of nitroglycerin and used that, we could say they used slaves and forced, unpaid labor over a long period of time, all of which seem possible, I'll pick any number of logical answers over a deus ex which puts aliens into the picture.

We're not the first dimension, another dimension caused the big bang. Either that or an invisible sky wizard made us all, I don't really need to know how we came about, although I'm not a fan of being punished by said wizard if I don't pick the correct answer. I like to believe that the multiverse is either made up of complete order, and through our lack of understanding some things seem like chaos, or complete chaos which forms some type of order at a large level. I'm leaning towards complete order. So far everything has seemed to have had order. Think of this for a second, if I flip a coin which head will land face up? You might say it's random, and it is to us, but it's really only based on how hard I flip it, the air resistance, and so on, the outcome is totally controlled by the original conditions. Lets move that onto the human mind, now, we have free will, for the most part, but how can our minds not work on the same laws of physics the coin works on? You could say we have some type of soul or life energy or some other none-sense but it seems to me that our minds and our ability to reason can be affected by many things in the world, we can be mentally ill, be born with down syndrome, countless things, it seems that our mind and ability to reason is very much controlled by the laws of physics. Just because a system is amazingly complex does not mean it is not a system, a system is made up by its smallest equations, video games are only a bunch of very simple instructions to hardware which in its grande scale seems to have a purpose. So lets say we do have free will, then what is that? It's either based on order, in which we have control for the most part but in reality we don't, or it is made of chaos, in which our decisions are not based on the laws of physics somehow, neither of which really make a free choice, flipping a coin is not a free choice and a linear action and reaction does not a free person make, an no mixture of the two can make free will which is not based on randomness or our original conditions. Interesting stuff. Hmm, how did I get on that topic? Oh yeah, the big bang, I wanted to point out how that if the multiverse has order then from the very moment the big bang happened, and really before that, it was preordained that we would be making these posts to this forum, as the big bang, well, really what came before it, and before that, etc, was our original condition. Although I would say this thread is very close to what would be considered a religion thread, but it might not be.

The point of debate is not simply for people to express their opinions, it's to express them and combat those of other people, to try to figure out who is right. I agree that ad hominem attacks add nothing to a debate but bringing the question of an opponents competence and mental state doesn't fall under that. Also you should try not to double post, just edit your post instead. You're using logic, but some people just want to believe in something, in the end unless you can truly prove something did not happen or does not exist, which is near impossible, there will be individuals who will decide to believe in the more interesting and meaningful answer, and once they believe they'd feel as if they had lost something dear to them if they decided to stop believing, so they decide not to. To an extent an illusion must be reinforced by oneself, one must debate it to keep doubt out of their own mind, they feel that if they can convince others that their fantasy is real that somehow that will make it real. Interesting stuff, although what I said doesn't really directly apply to any one person here, but it's a general truth to consider that's somewhat related.

No, I'm quite sure I'm talking to you, however you might be right in that you could be too stoned or mentally unstable to understand what I've said, M.r. "Go into the forest and do weird stuff with your hands next to a river". I don't believe your personal delusions are in any books or websites I could gain access to, so I really have no way of learning about them in depth, however I am contempt only knowing about the real world. I see. Are you using google translate or something? This is just complete none-sense you are typing.

*Sign* Maybe if you went to the ocean you would understand. Stand there, look at the water coming and hitting the sand, put your left hand on your hip, put your right arm out straight, take deep breaths, say out loud "I'm a little teapot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout, when I get all steamed up, hear me shout, tip me over and pour me out!" and then lean forwards. Can you honestly say that after doing that 1 + 1 does not equal potato? Can you really not even as far as doesn't for it to might be in the out by because it can't? Duuple derp my herp derp darp durkle de doo doo?

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/434/wwhhhaattt.jpg So you are implying that there is something other than order or chaos or the mixture of the two? If I flip a coin, the outcome is based either fully on how hard I flip it and the wind and air resistance, etc, or fully on random chance, which makes no sense, or a mixture of order and chaos, at no point can that coin really decide what happens. People can decide for themselves, but in the grand scheme of things we are controlled by forces we can't control. What you're pretty much saying is that a switch which can be set to on or off or anywhere in the middle can also be set to a position "Potato", it makes no sense, you cannot have anything other than order or chaos or the mixture of the two. You think that there is more to understanding then logic? Should I stop thinking with my brain and start using my foot or something? Should I start asking the fairies in the walls what their opinion on the subject is? What makes you so sure you're right if you aren't basing your opinion on provable fact? I was born knowing nothing and everything I know I have gathered from the visible realm, I am not about to start wondering "Hey wouldn't it be cool if we were made by aliens" or "Hey wouldn't it be cool if we all had special magic life energy" when I have no reason to believe we do, if we do then fine, I don't care, but I'm not about to believe something which cannot be proven just because it'd be neato, thus, I don't really need to know, now do I. It's very much possible aliens might've made us, but I see no real proof for it nor any real reason why that would have to had been.

I disagree with the first statement (why?), and as much as I love (not loved) the PS2, of the current gen systems, I only own the XBOX 360. Game preference is more important. It was an opinion not a statement, and unless you've played a lot of the PS3's many great mostly single player titles then your opinion doesn't mean much if anything. Also note that the PS3 having a lot of great games isn't an opinion on my part, it is a fact, as overall the PS3 has higher rated video games above that of the Xbox 360 and Wii, although I do like online play and I like the Xbox 360 more than the PS3. I would also like to point out that I am in fact a certified internet therapist, I know what I'm talking about. I can tell you are very sure of yourself. There are gamers who are not into the whole online aspect, and I do not think you should disregard others opinions so quickly, but you're the professional or whatever... The people who do not have (and many who cannot afford) both systems or lots of games, their opinions count too. One person cannot be the only judge. I like the look of the PS3 and the games it tends to have, but certain games for the XBOX 360 stood out for various reason, hence I bought that console. The PS3 does not have a higher rating than the Wii though. I do not like the Wii, but the sales give it all the support it needs... I'm not a fan of the Wii, I own one and it's just gathering dust, I wouldn't recommend the Wii to anybody. I still believe that people who own both consoles, have played a lot of each consoles exclusive titles and overall have a good feeling for each of their strengths and weaknesses can better judge their value when compared to each other. I agree with you that the Xbox 360 is better than the PS3 overall, but I will admit I have had more fun with offline PS3 games than most offline Xbox 360 games, although the exception to that would be Fable 2 and Crackdown, which were a blast. The PS3 can play Blu-Ray movies, is better suited to storing photos and music and video than the Xbox 360 is and it overall seems to have a better offline experience than the Xbox 360, if I weren't into online gaming then I think I would've liked the PS3 more than the Xbox 360.

I disagree with the first statement (why?), and as much as I love (not loved) the PS2, of the current gen systems, I only own the XBOX 360. Game preference is more important. It was an opinion not a statement, and unless you've played a lot of the PS3's many great mostly single player titles then your opinion doesn't mean much if anything. Also note that the PS3 having a lot of great games isn't an opinion on my part, it is a fact, as overall the PS3 has higher rated video games above that of the Xbox 360 and Wii, although I do like online play and I like the Xbox 360 more than the PS3. I would also like to point out that I am in fact a certified internet therapist, I know what I'm talking about.

I am a certified internet therapist, I do not believe you have the type of extensive education I have had in subjects like this, so lets talk about single issues. 1: Does complete order create free will? 2: Does chaos create free will? 3: Can there be something other than order or chaos or the mixture of the two? 4: What biological mechanism is it that requires some type of unseen mystical energy? 5: Is there any real reason why there must be aliens involved?